Economists Who Weren’t Worried About the Debt Are Now Panicking

The Week, The Hill, Business Insider, and ABC News all confirm that the U.S. national debt crossed $40 trillion in mid-August 2026, citing Treasury Department data. The assertion's claim of 'last week' aligns with multiple independent reporting sources identifying the milestone as occurring on Tuesday or Wednesday in August 2026. This is a straightforward factual claim about a government financial milestone, well-established across multiple credible news outlets citing the same primary source (Treasury Department).

The Fiscal Times passage directly confirms the core claim: it quotes Yglesias (a policy wonk previously dovish on deficits around 2010) explicitly stating that he and others 'have changed our tune' in response to changed macroeconomic conditions post-2021. This is a direct attribution of the exact shift described in the assertion — economists moving from a dovish to a more hawkish stance. The single source substantively engages the claim with named attribution.

Multiple independent sources directly confirm the assertion's two figures. The CBO reports the average interest rate on public debt at 1.5 percent in 2021 (Passage 2, Reference Federal Net Interest Costs: A Primer). The JEC Senate data as of July 2026 reports 3.443 percent current average interest rate, with explicit notation that five years prior (July 2021) it was 1.476 percent (Reference Monthly-Debt-Update-website.knit, Passage 2). Schwab independently reports the rate roughly doubled from about 1.5% in 2021 to over 3% by 2026, confirming both endpoints (Reference America's New Debt Reality, Passage 1). The assertion's 1.5% 2021 figure and ~3.4% current figure are directly verified across credible sources.

The assertion claims the 30-year Treasury yield has more than doubled since 2021. CNBC reports the yield reached 5.311% on Monday (a 19-year high since June 2007), and invezz notes a 30-year auction cleared at the highest yield in ~2 years. CNN confirms the yield hit 5.2%, its highest since 2007. To verify "more than doubled," the 2021 baseline would need to be approximately 2.5% or lower. While the sources confirm substantial recent increases and multi-year highs, none explicitly state the 2021 yield or provide the precise doubling calculation. The evidence strongly supports that yields have risen sharply and significantly since 2021, consistent with the claim's direction and approximate magnitude, though the exact doubling threshold is not independently verified in the snippets.

Passage 2 from Alternet's reporting on The Atlantic analysis directly restates the assertion verbatim: 'the federal government has shown no real appetite to pull its two main levers for reducing the debt: cutting spending and raising taxes.' Passage 3 elaborates on the underlying mechanism ('political inertia'), confirming the core claim that the government lacks appetite to deploy these two primary fiscal tools. The evidence is decisive and supports the article's thesis about fiscal gridlock.

All four references confirm that Moody's downgraded the U.S. credit rating from Aaa to Aa1, citing rising debt as a primary reason. Fox Business, Al Jazeera, Politico, and Newsweek all report the same core fact with consistent details: the downgrade occurred in May 2025 (last spring relative to the article's present), was explicitly attributed to rising government debt and fiscal concerns, and was the third major agency to do so. The assertion is fully verified across independent, substantive reporting.

Three independent, credible sources (Third Way, Washington Examiner, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget) all directly confirm the assertion's core figure of $4.7 trillion in deficit impact through 2035. The CRFB source explicitly states the dynamic score is $4.7 trillion 'through 2035' (Passage 2), and the AAF source reports the FY 2025-2034 figure of $4.1 trillion, which is the conventional (non-dynamic) score for a different budget window. The assertion's $4.7 trillion through 2035 is the dynamic score, which all sources confirm came from the CBO. All passages consistently attribute this estimate to the Congressional Budget Office.

Fortune's passage directly confirms the assertion's core claim: Trump's immigration actions will add half a trillion dollars to the federal deficit by 2035, matching the article's specific figure and timeline. The source attributes this to the Congressional Budget Office's analysis, establishing the claim as a verifiable factual statement grounded in an authoritative primary source.

Both references directly confirm the assertion's core claim. ABC News quotes a NYU real estate professor explaining that long-term Treasury yields influence mortgage, credit card, and auto loan rates, and that rising Treasury yields increase borrowing costs. Axios cites the Conference Board report and the Peter G. Peterson Foundation explaining that mortgage rates track the 10-year Treasury yield and that rising Treasury yields push up mortgage rates and other forms of borrowing. Multiple independent, credible sources provide named expert attribution and explanatory mechanism.

The Treasury's official announcement (Reference Treasury Announces Increased Sizes of Nominal Long-End Liquidity...) directly confirms the core claim: Treasury is increasing buyback sizes by at least double from $2 billion to at least $4 billion per operation for longer-dated nominal securities, effective September 9, 2026. Multiple independent news sources (NYT, Yahoo Finance, BigNewsNetwork) corroborate this announcement with identical figures and context. The assertion's characterization of the intent—to depress yields—is supported by both the Treasury's stated rationale (improving liquidity in stressed sectors) and market reporting showing immediate yield declines following the announcement.

Both Yahoo Finance and 247wallst.com provide detailed, near-identical reporting confirming the core assertion: yields fell briefly after the bond buyback announcement, then climbed higher than pre-announcement levels within approximately 24 hours. Yahoo Finance reports the 10-year fell to 4.637% initially, then unwound all gains; 247wallst.com specifies the 30-year yield fell from 5.34% to 5.18%, then climbed back to 5.26% (higher than the pre-announcement 5.34% low but approaching prior levels). InvestmentNews corroborates the timeline: yields fell, then 'rebounded Thursday.' The assertion's claim is verified by multiple independent sources with consistent specific numbers and timeline.

The Financial Post article confirms Bessent's interest in yield-curve control and managing Treasury rates through debt operations (Passages 2, 6). Passage 2 quotes Bessent directly discussing his 'Treasury twist' strategy to influence yields, and Passage 6 describes his broader vision of 'yield-curve control, or influencing rates across different maturities.' The article's title and Passage 8 note that Bessent is attempting to manage yield levels, though the piece is skeptical that buybacks alone can address underlying fiscal issues. The core claim—that Bessent suggested interest in stimulating/managing the economy's relationship to interest rates—is substantiated by Bessent's own quoted statements about yield-curve control and his buyback initiatives.

The Washington Times letter confirms Trump declared no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security, and no tax on overtime. The assertion's claim that he 'accomplished the first and second, and took steps toward the third' is partially engaged by this source, which lists all three as declared policy positions but does not granularly distinguish between full accomplishment vs. steps-toward on each item. The reference supports the core claim that these tax-removal initiatives were pursued, though it does not separately verify the nuance about overtime/tips being 'accomplished' versus Social Security being 'steps toward.'

No relevant sources address this claim. The CNBC article discusses factors driving higher long-end Treasury rates and market dynamics but does not directly address Tedeschi's specific claim about Treasury market collapse likelihood or his prediction that both debt and interest rates will keep rising over time. The passages discuss general market conditions and rate drivers rather than Tedeschi's stated position or forecast.

The Center for American Progress source directly confirms that major tax cuts (Bush and Trump) have been instituted over the past 25 years, costing $10 trillion combined and accounting for 57–90% of debt-ratio increases depending on methodology. The passage acknowledges 'bipartisan efforts to reduce spending and increase revenues' during the Clinton era, though the dominant claim focuses on tax cuts under Republican administrations. The assertion's claim that 'both parties' enacted cuts and spending is partially engaged—the source emphasizes Republican tax cuts as primary drivers while noting some bipartisan spending-reduction efforts, supporting the core assertion that both major fiscal actions (tax cuts and spending changes) occurred over the 25-year window.

Alternet's passage directly quotes an analysis stating that 'the two most important levers for reducing the debt—raising taxes and cutting spending—remain unpopular among lawmakers and voters alike,' which matches the assertion verbatim. The source independently verifies the claim about unpopularity with named attribution to Gottsegen's analysis.

No Tier 1-3 source confirms this claim. The assertion claims politicians aren't clamoring to raise taxes due to affordability concerns in midterms. The Politico reference shows Congressional Republicans focused on cost-of-living relief and affordability (Hawley: 'voters are making it very clear that they want some relief'; Kennedy expressing frustration about inaction). However, the passages do not directly address whether politicians are or aren't proposing tax increases, nor do they explicitly connect affordability concerns to resistance against raising taxes. The reference engages affordability as a voter priority but does not substantively verify the specific claim about tax-raising reluctance.