‘Forever bonds' may be back in play for Team Trump after Saudi Arabia trip
The conventional wisdom is that so-called 'forever bonds,' or US Treasuries with a maturity of 50 years or more, isn't something that Team Trump is considering for lots of reasons.
The main one being that the notion of selling such long-term debt could make it less appealing for investors to buy more conventional treasuries such as 10- and 30-year bonds pegged to consumer rates like mortgages — which would shoot up interest rates for average Americans.
President Trump shaking hands with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman during the Saudi-US investment forum in Riyadh on May 13, 2025.
Photo by Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs/UPI/Shutterstock
Ever since dismissing the forever bond in this column a few weeks ago, I've been hearing the other side of the story.
Lots of talk along the DC-Wall Street corridor centered on the possibility that the 50-year T-bill could be making a comeback because President Trump was once warm to the idea and he has a lot of short-term debt coming due that could muck up his broader economic agenda.
More recently, I've been hearing that forever bonds could in some way be part of Trump's negotiations with the Saudis, who have just pledged economic cooperation and investment in the US.
I have no solid info that Trump ever broached the idea during his recent sit-down with Saudi leader Mohammed bin Salman, aka MBS.
It was a love-fest between the 39-year-old crown prince and the 78-year-old Trump, with no shortage of platitudinous compliments and lots of promises of closer economic ties with the cash-rich kingdom, so who knows what came up.
Plus, the Saudis operate one of the world's largest sovereign-wealth funds, the $900-billion-plus PIF. That's one reason there's speculation the Saudis could help the US refinance its debt with the 50-year bond.
The other reason is our country's addiction to government spending, even with the allegedly frugal GOP in charge. There might be a need to pay our creditors later rather than sooner so we can afford tax cuts while enjoying all that spending that leads to a $2 trillion budget deficit.
$36 trillion to repay
Those dreaded trade deficits President Trump wants to fix through tariffs are rooted in our massive budget deficit. The potential $160 billion in DOGE cuts is nice, but it's barely making a fiscal dent and we still have $36 trillion in debt to repay.
Deficits mean we need bond buyers from around the world, places like Japan and China, who buy our treasuries after they convert their currencies into ours, all of which strengthens the dollar and makes exports more expensive, aka trade deficits.
The whole rigmarole leads not just to trade imbalances but to higher interest rates since we keep selling bonds to finance our largesse.
A refinancing of that debt — spreading out principal and interest payments over many years — could reduce debt service costs, the theory goes, since bonds coming due now wouldn't have to be repaid for 50 years.
Again, there are many in the economic community who think such a refinancing is playing with fire. It could be seen as a default, an indication to the world we don't have the money to meet our immediate commitments.
My pal Stephen Moore, a former Trump economic adviser, remains a proponent of the 50-year bond. He tells me Trump was hot on the idea during his first term. It was shot down by others in the administration.
Moore concedes the interest rate environment is different now than when he pitched the idea to Trump back in 2019 — long-term rates are higher so the longest bond will be relatively more expensive.
But the Biden administration issued so much short-term debt (mainly to disguise the interest rate impact of its overspending) that debt-service payments will start to balloon when those bonds reach maturity in the coming months and years.
Refinancing that borrowing for the next 50 years could give Trump some room to enact growth-oriented tax cuts and begin to rein in federal spending, as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has suggested is the Trump economic policy, Moore says.
A spokeswoman for Bessent had no immediate comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a minute ago
- Yahoo
Trump debanking order will have limited impact on crypto, experts say
Last week, US President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing bank regulators to rescind guidance that could lead to 'politicised or unlawful debanking.' Crypto businesses, and even some prominent conservatives — including the president himself — have alleged they were denied or lost access to bank accounts at the behest of politically-motivated, Biden-era regulators. But last week's executive order, entitled, 'Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans,' won't do much for crypto businesses that fear they've been locked out of the traditional financial system, according to experts who spoke to DL News. That's because the order does little to root out 'reputation risk.' The term refers to regulators' ability to dissuade banks from engaging supposedly controversial customers, such as pornographers, firearms manufacturers, payday lenders, and crypto companies. Critics of the practice say that banks should only consider objective criteria, such as a customer's financial risk, when deciding whether to offer someone a checking account. Guidance documents and manuals 'This is going to make people happy who have been asking for it, but it's not clear how much good it's going to do them,' Dru Stevenson, a professor at South Texas College of Law Houston, told DL News. The executive order directs bank regulators to remove the use of reputation risk 'or equivalent concepts' that could result in 'politicized or unlawful debanking' from their 'guidance documents, manuals, and other materials.' But it isn't clear that examples of debanking were motivated by politics, according to Stevenson. 'It's not clear to me that they couldn't still allow for reputational risk that would apply to, say, an AI company, because that's not exactly a political issue or something that's unlawful,' he said. And reputation risk can have a downstream effect on banks' profits. 'If you have risk averse investors at one of the gigantic pension funds, or mutual funds, and they find out that Wachovia has gone gung ho about crypto, that might be a reason for them to switch to a more conservative bank,' Stevenson said. Moreover, banks were always free to ignore guidance documents and manuals according to Stevenson. As such, removing references to reputation risk from such documents will likely have little practical effect. 'If you're an agency, you can't go into court and say, 'This person violated our guidance document,'' he said. 'You have to show that they violated the statute or that they violated a codified regulation that went through notice and comment rulemaking.' Management reports Julie Hill, the dean of the University of Wyoming's law school, noted that Trump-appointed bank regulators have already said they will stop using reputation risk. While the regulators have new leadership, they are largely staffed by the same people who served under the Biden administration, Hill added. And reputation risk isn't the only tool regulators can use to pressure banks to reject certain customers. Anti-money laundering laws are one reason banks often reject customers, according to Hill. 'The vast, vast majority of suspicious activity reports don't lead to any sort of follow up, let alone any sort of enforcement,' she told DL News. Moreover, banks are not allowed to tell customers that their account was flagged for suspicious activity. 'We have a situation where banks had to file one or more SARs, and they decided it's just not worth it, we should debank, because we don't want our regulators upset with us, and it's getting expensive to file all these SARs.' Another tool at regulators' disposal: management reports. 'If a regulator suggests to a bank, 'We think this is risky, maybe you want to stop doing it' [but] it's not really that risky, banks might do it anyway,' Hill said, 'because their management rating will get downgraded and then that impacts all sorts of things, including their capital requirements.' Those ratings are also secret, according to Hill. 'Anytime you see a really broad authority with very little limit, and then also a lot of secrecy or lack of transparency about how regulators or banks implement that, you're likely to set up claims for debanking,' she said. Banks' responsibility The executive order also directs the regulators to identify financial institutions that had any 'past or current, formal or informal, policies or practices that require, encourage, or otherwise influence … politicized or unlawful debanking.' Finding examples of politically-motivated debanking could be straightforward if the orders came from federal regulators, according to Hill. 'It's a much harder thing if what you think happened is the banks, for whatever reason, just decided to debank people for political reasons, unconnected with risk or profit or whatever,' she said. 'There's a real question about how we think regulators are going to figure that out and whether we think there's any duty on the bank to voluntarily disclose it.' Whatever the effect of the executive order, both professors agreed that a new administration could reinstate the use of reputation risk unilaterally. 'It kind of highlights how unsticky changes made by the executive branch are when it comes to discretionary enforcement,' Hill said. 'This is one of those things that can change from administration to administration.' Stevenson agreed. 'If we ever get to have other presidents, the next president can just do another executive order and put it all back, like, overnight,' Stevenson said. Aleks Gilbert is DL News' New York-based DeFi correspondent. You can contact him at aleks@ Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Boston Globe
2 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Why autocracy is rising in America, and how to stop it before it's too late
These two examples are but a sample of the laser-focused and ever-intensifying Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up 'This is about how do you dismantle democracy, in real time, in plain sight,' Stacey Abrams, voting rights activist and former Georgia state legislator, said in an Advertisement It can all feel overwhelming, as if it is too much coming at us too fast to wrap our arms around, let alone fight. But that isn't true. There are things we all can do to push back against and mitigate the autocratic turn our nation has taken. But first, we have to be clear about how and why authoritarianism can so easily take over a democracy like America's. Advertisement It's not just the Supreme Court's continued targeting of the Voting Rights Act or the flagrant partisan gerrymandering to keep increasingly purple states like Texas bright red. Democracy is dying by a thousand cuts, though many feel more like machete wounds. They include Then there's the plan, straight out of Project 2025, to There is also the federal And so much more. Ask yourself: If Republicans were so confident that their policies were popular, why would they be working so hard to rig the electoral system to hold onto power? They give their own game away. But they couldn't do it unless a significant portion of Americans (far short of a majority) were willing to go along with it. I'm often shocked at the willingness of so many Americans to watch our democratic guardrails crumble with barely an 'oh, hum.' But Abrams raised an important point: The way autocrats win over supporters is by telling them the lie that democracy cannot give the people what they need, and that they should embrace an alternative. That was exactly how Rodrigo Duterte rose to power in the Philippines and Viktor Orbán in Hungary. And now it's happening here. Advertisement Republicans have been successful in making their supporters think, as Abrams said, that 'it's this community of people [Democrats] who are the reason you don't have anything, and so we will let you [Republicans] oppress an entire population if it justifies our convenience and guarantees us what we need.' Add a healthy dose of fear-mongering (the entire basis of the Trump administration's militarized attack on immigrants and cities like Washington, D.C.) and otherwise sensible people's tolerance for democratic backsliding skyrockets. But there is reason for hope: We are not without power to push back in real, meaningful ways. 'We need your investment,' Abrams said. 'This is not just about money. It's about time, talent, and treasure.' Give money to pro-democracy causes and candidates if you have it to spare, but that's not the only way. Contact advocacy organizations — from immigrant support groups to organizations dedicated to keeping elections free and fair — and ask what they need. Often it isn't just money but also volunteer time and effort. Contacting members of Congress is useful, but so is showing up at your local town council and school board meetings and demanding they fight against local-level autocracy like book banning and conservative takeovers of school curricula. Talk to your neighbors, your family, and your friends about how much we have to lose if we don't take action. 'We've got to show up and show that democracy can still deliver, even if it's being delivered by individuals,' Abrams said. 'Your church, your organization, your Girl Scout troop, whatever coalition you have, has to step into the gap.' It was a wonderful reminder to me that we are not powerless. I want to remind you of that, too. Advertisement Kimberly Atkins Stohr is a columnist for the Globe. She may be reached at
The Intercept
2 minutes ago
- The Intercept
Veterans Are 'Guinea Pigs' in Trump's First National Abortion Ban Experiment
Ash Wallis knows she likely wouldn't survive another pregnancy. Doctors said as much years earlier after she suffered a pulmonary embolism following a miscarriage, and got a second blood clot. Getting pregnant again isn't a risk she is willing or able to take. 'I have two sons,' said Wallis. 'I don't want to leave them motherless.' Wallis, 40, begged her health care provider to give her an IUD — her best chance at preventing another pregnancy and protecting her life. But her provider, the Department of Veterans Affairs, refused to cover the procedure. Despite three years of service in the Army, Wallis was forced to pay out of pocket at a local clinic. 'The risks of me getting pregnant and there being a significant health issue were too much risk for me to gamble on,' she said. Access to reproductive care and abortion has long been a problem for those who rely on VA care. But a policy change by the Trump administration stands to make reproductive health for service members and veterans even worse. Last week, the administration posted a proposed rule for VA facilities that would severely narrow access to abortion — eliminating exceptions for health, rape, and incest, and only allowing the procedure in situations deemed to threaten the life of the mother. The rule would also ban any counseling for abortion through the VA. The proposed policy now enters a mandatory 30-day comment period, after which it can go into effect. Experts told The Intercept that the rule change will have devastating consequences for the millions of service members and veterans reliant on health care through the VA, as well as their families. 'It's the worst-case scenario,' said Rachel Fey, vice president of policy and strategic partnerships at Power to Decide, a nonprofit focused on reproductive and sexual health. The Department of Veterans Affairs has long excluded abortion care and abortion counseling from its medical benefits package, with a narrow exception for the 'life of the mother.' That changed in 2022 when the Biden administration, recognizing the danger posed to veterans and service members by the Supreme Court's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, instituted a new rule allowing for abortion counseling and abortion care in an expanded list of circumstances. It's this Biden-era change that is under attack by the Trump administration. The administration describes the proposed policy shift as a return to form. 'Prior to the Biden Administration's politically motivated change in 2022, federal law and longstanding precedent across Democrat and Republican administrations prevented VA from providing abortions and abortion counseling,' wrote Gary Kunich, a Veterans Affairs spokesperson, in a statement to the Intercept. Fey and other reproductive health experts had anticipated the Trump administration would institute an abortion ban at the VA. But they told The Intercept that this version is particularly draconian considering the dramatic fall-off in abortion access following the Dobbs decision. 'This new policy would be one of the strictest abortion bans in the country, and for veterans living in the 12 states that ban abortion, it would further close off what may be their only opportunity to access urgently needed abortion care,' said Liz McCaman Taylor, senior federal policy counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights, in a statement. 'For veterans living in these states, they may now be forced to carry pregnancies to term even if they were raped or the pregnancy puts their health in jeopardy.' The proposed rule would 'reinstate the full exclusion on abortions and abortion counseling.' Unlike under the Biden rule, which allowed for abortion counseling and abortion care to protect the health of the mother or in cases of rape and incest, the new proposed rule only includes a vague, narrow exception for 'life of the mother.' 'For the avoidance of doubt, the proposed rule would make clear that the exclusion for abortion does not apply 'when a physician certifies that the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term,'' wrote the administration in a summary of the draft proposal. However, in a potentially complicating line, the administration wrote: 'Taken together, claims in the prior administration's rule that abortions throughout pregnancy are needed to save the lives of pregnant women are incorrect.' Jaclyn Dean, director of congressional relations, reproductive health, at the National Partnership for Women & Families, said that the lack of medical clarity around when doctors are allowed to intervene is going to cost lives. 'If I'm a doctor for the VA,' said Dean, 'I'm very confused about what I'm legally allowed to do.' Fey said her organization, Power to Decide, was 'not aware of any circumstances' where the VA covered abortion care under the life exception in place before the Biden rule. 'There was always sort of supposed to be this very, very narrow life exception, but similar to what's happening now in the post-Dobbs world, we're seeing that those life exceptions don't work in practice,' she said. Lindsay Church, executive director of Minority Veterans of America, said the counseling ban adds another layer of risk because providers are prevented from even discussing the option of abortion until it may be too late. 'Good luck if you get to a place where you're dying,' said Church, 'because you can't get abortion counseling before that. And that, to me, is insulting. Not only that, but it could have deadly consequences.' Read Our Complete Coverage The counseling ban also means veterans or active-duty service members referred to the Veterans Affairs administration for care after being sexually assaulted can't discuss abortion as an option with their provider. 'We already know that women veterans experience Military Sexual Trauma at alarming rates, and many of us continue to fight battles long after our service ends,' said Stephanie Gattas, founder of the Pink Berets, which offers support for women veterans struggling with PTSD, military sexual assault, and other mental health issues. Over 8,000 service members, who can also be referred to the VA for care, reported being sexually assaulted last year. And nearly 500 people reported being sexually assaulted while on a VA campus last year, according to Church. Both numbers are likely a severe undercount. 'The military community is wrought with sexual violence,' said Church. 'Now, if you get raped and become pregnant … because of assault at the Department of Veterans Affairs, they won't help you.' Sylvia Andersh, a former service member who worked at Veterans Affairs hospitals as a nurse, called the lack of exceptions for rape 'cruel.' 'My faith in humanity has been quite tested with the fact that they're willing to blatantly hurt women,' said Andersh. For Wallis, who was sexually assaulted while serving in the military, the lack of rape exceptions is especially troubling. 'It feels like being spit in my face,' she said. 'I wrote a check up to and including my life for this country, and I'm not provided equal access to care,' Wallis said. Wallis also worries that this new policy could increase suicidal ideation among service members. 'An unexpected pregnancy, whether it's due to rape, incest, or contraceptive failure, doesn't matter what the cause is,' she said, 'it increases suicidal ideation, and in the lack of access to care, you add that in, and that risk increases further.' The biggest impact is going to fall on veterans and service members living in states with abortion bans, experts told The Intercept. The Department of Veterans Affairs is the largest integrated health care system in the United States, serving 2 million women veterans, over 400,000 of whom live in states with abortion bans. 'We were living in a much different world the last time this total ban was in effect.' Though the Trump administration insists the policy change would be a return to standard VA practice, Taylor, of Center for Reproductive Rights, points out that the landscape has changed following the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision. 'We were living in a much different world the last time this total ban was in effect. This is the first time there has been a total abortion ban in VA health care facilities since Roe v. Wade was overturned,' said Taylor. 'Before Roe fell, if a veteran couldn't get an abortion at a VA health care facility, they could seek one elsewhere in their state. Now, abortion is banned in many states, and over 100 clinics have closed, meaning veterans living in those states will be totally out of options.' Wallis said she feels as if the administration is testing how far it can restrict access to care, pointing to the abortion ban and new restrictions on gender-affirming care at the VA. 'We're the guinea pigs they want to test what they're able to do to the general public,' she said. 'I truly feel like they're testing what they want to do with the rest of the country on us, and it's scary to me.'
