President Donald Trump this week proposed a 50-year mortgage as a fix for housing affordability, a suggestion that quickly drew local and national attention. Utah lenders, university experts and young buyers weighed the trade-offs: lower monthly payments versus far higher lifetime interest and slower equity accumulation. Industry rules and investor appetite mean broad availability would need policy changes and lender buy-in. The debate in Utah illustrates how a headline proposal collides with technical limits and everyday household finance.
Key takeaways
- President Trump floated the 50-year mortgage idea earlier this week; the proposal circulated first on Truth Social and via Director of Federal Housing Bill Pulte on X (Nov. 2025).
- On a $400,000 home with 10% down at an illustrative 6.25% rate, Realtor.com modeled total interest of roughly $816,396 for a 50-year loan versus $438,156 for a 30-year loan — about 86% more interest over the life of the loan.
- Zions Bank lender Carlos Sanchez warned very long terms can roughly double interest paid; he estimated scenarios where buyers pay about $800,000 in interest on long loans.
- BYU finance professor Barrett Slade said a 50-year term might help a small share of would-be buyers qualify but does not address the central affordability barrier: elevated mortgage rates.
- Current Qualified Mortgage rules do not permit 50-year fixed-rate loans for wide use; Congressional or regulatory change would be required for broad availability.
- Experts and originators say investor demand may be limited for extended-term products, likely pushing rates on 50-year loans above typical 30-year pricing and reducing monthly savings.
Background
Homeownership affordability has been strained by rising mortgage rates and still-elevated home prices after the pandemic-era boom. For many prospective buyers, monthly payment size is the immediate constraint; stretching loan terms is a long-standing private-sector response to lower monthly outlays. But stretch strategies shift costs over time: buyers pay more interest, build equity more slowly and may face exposure to rate and market cycles.
Federal rules such as the Qualified Mortgage (QM) standard limit certain loan features that policymakers and regulators judge to be risky for consumers and investors. Historically, major changes to mortgage product availability have required either regulatory reinterpretation or explicit legislative action, and investor appetite has steered which new products scale. As a policy lever, longer amortizations have supporters who emphasize cash-flow relief and critics who warn of lifetime cost and retirement vulnerabilities.
Main event
The idea appeared this week on President Trump’s Truth Social account and was amplified on X by Bill Pulte, the White House’s director of federal housing, who framed a 50-year mortgage as a potential tool to broaden affordability. The suggestion immediately prompted reactions across Utah’s mortgage industry, academic community and among house-hunting young adults.
At Zions Bank, CRA mortgage lender Carlos Sanchez cautioned first-time buyers that long terms can dramatically increase cumulative interest costs. Using a $400,000 example, he told local reporters that interest over a very long loan can approach sums comparable to the original principal, urging borrowers to weigh a few hundred dollars saved each month against decades of extra interest.
Zions mortgage officer Heidi Dillier argued that most mortgages are refinanced in practice and that many borrowers do not retain original loans for 30 years — particularly when rates are high. She described a 50-year amortization as the wrong structural answer, saying the more effective route is lower rates and using existing pathways to ownership such as co-buying or targeted products.
BYU finance professor Barrett Slade said a 50-year term could allow a small minority to meet qualification thresholds but that the policy emphasis should be on reducing rates and addressing inflationary drivers. Young buyers such as real estate agent Savanah Romney were more measured: Romney said a longer term “depends on your finances,” and that some households could benefit if they plan to refinance when rates fall.
Analysis & implications
Stretching amortization to 50 years redistributes monthly cash flow but does not eliminate the underlying price and rate pressures that limit affordability. Lower monthly payments can make down-payment and debt-to-income tests easier to clear, potentially expanding eligibility for marginal buyers. However, because total interest accrues over a much longer schedule, the lifetime cost of housing rises substantially, which can reduce net wealth accumulation and create retirement vulnerabilities for households that still carry large balances late in life.
Investor demand is critical: mortgage-backed security buyers decide which loan terms they will hold and at what yield. If investors require a premium for 50-year paper, lenders would need to charge higher rates on those loans, shrinking the monthly savings that proponents emphasize. The Mortgage Bankers Association and other industry groups have signaled cautious interest at best, meaning any large-scale rollout would likely face higher pricing or limited distribution.
Policy change is a nontrivial barrier. The current federal Qualified Mortgage rules in effect do not accommodate a broad class of 50-year fixed loans; Congress or federal agencies would need to amend underwriting or safety standards for these loans to be widely offered. That creates a multi-layered political and regulatory pathway, where support from both lawmakers and regulators would be necessary — and controversial — given consumer protection concerns.
Comparison & data
| Assumption | 30-year (example) | 50-year (example) |
|---|---|---|
| $400,000 home, 10% down, 6.25% rate | Total interest: $438,156 | Total interest: $816,396 |
| Monthly principal & interest | Baseline | ~$250 lower versus 30-year (approx.) |
The table summarizes modeling cited by Realtor.com: a 50-year amortization can cut monthly principal-and-interest payments by roughly $250 on the example but increases lifetime interest by roughly 86%. Those gains on monthly cash flow must be weighed against long-term wealth effects and the practical reality that 50-year fixed-rate products are not currently permitted broadly under the QM framework.
Reactions & quotes
Local lenders and experts provided rapid, conditional pushback that emphasized counseling and the full-cost trade-offs of longer terms.
“On a $400,000 home, you could end up paying roughly $800,000 in interest on a very long loan,”
Carlos Sanchez, Zions Bank (mortgage lender)
Sanchez used the example to highlight how interest accrual over decades can surprise borrowers who focus only on monthly payment reductions. He urged thorough borrower counseling so household plans account for long-run costs and refinancing scenarios.
“Most loans get refinanced; very few stay for 30 years today — a 50-year plan is not the right fix,”
Heidi Dillier, Zions Bank (loan officer)
Dillier recommended lowering rates and using existing ownership pathways, such as co-buying or targeted products, rather than extending amortization as a primary policy tool.
“A 50-year term might help a small minority, but rates are the real barrier,”
Barrett Slade, BYU (professor of finance)
Slade advised younger buyers to consider renting longer and aiming for a standard 30-year mortgage when rates settle, noting demographic trends that push first-time buyers toward older ages.
Unconfirmed
- Whether 50-year loans could be priced at very low rates (e.g., 2%–3%) — lenders and market signals suggest that would be unlikely without significant subsidies.
- How quickly Congress or regulators would act to change Qualified Mortgage rules to permit broad availability of 50-year fixed-rate products.
- The ultimate investor appetite for 50-year paper at scale and the precise premium investors would demand for longer-dated mortgage securities.
Bottom line
Extending amortization to 50 years would lower monthly payments for some buyers but at the cost of substantially higher lifetime interest and slower equity building. For marginal buyers struggling to meet monthly qualification thresholds, a longer term can be a bridge; for long-term household balance sheets and retirement readiness, the trade-offs are significant.
Practical rollout faces legal, regulatory and market barriers: the current QM framework, lender and investor pricing, and political appetite for changing federal underwriting standards. Utah voices — from bank lenders to academics and young buyers — reflect a consistent theme: the best policy response must balance immediate affordability with long-term financial security and clear consumer counseling.
Sources
- Deseret News (local journalism — original report on Utah reactions)
- Realtor.com (national media — modeling cited on 30-year vs 50-year interest)
- The Wall Street Journal (national media — coverage of lender and investor considerations)
- Politico (national media — reporting on White House and political response)
- Mortgage Bankers Association (industry association — investor and lender perspective)
- Zions Bank (bank — local lender commentary cited)