It took 200 years for U.S. Treasury bonds to surpass one trillion dollars in debt, and now the annual interest alone has already exceeded that number.

How do the constitutional amendment and deficit control debate impact debt solutions?

U.S. Congressman Jody Arrington holds a copy of “Why Nations Fail” by Ray Dalio. He points out, “It took the U.S. approximately 200 years to reach a $1 trillion national debt, and now, it can be added in just a few months.” Image source: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc - Getty Images

As the U.S. national debt surpasses $39 trillion, the Chairman of the House Budget Committee warns that the staggering debt burden poses an existential threat to “the future of the nation.”

Texas Republican Congressman Jody Arrington emphasized last week that it took nearly two centuries for the U.S. national debt to reach $1 trillion, whereas just a few decades later, the U.S. Treasury now spends that amount annually just on interest payments for the debt.

In fiscal year 2025, the Treasury will pay $1.22 trillion in debt interest; in fiscal year 2026, it has already paid $520 billion. According to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, by 2036, annual interest payments are expected to reach $2.1 trillion.

In fact, the national debt did not surpass $1 trillion until the early 1980s, reaching $1.1 trillion during President Ronald Reagan’s administration.

As Arrington pointed out, “It took the U.S. approximately 200 years to reach a $1 trillion national debt, and now, it can be added in just a few months. Now, every child in America bears a debt burden of $530,000 — a heavy shackled that must be reversed. Worse, our annual spending on interest payments alone exceeds $1 trillion, surpassing the entire defense budget and is three times what it was when Biden took office.”

Arrington is not the only one concerned about America’s fiscal outlook. Heavyweights in the private sector, such as Jamie Dimon and Ray Dalio, have warned that the debt issue could lead to a “reckoning.” Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell has also stated that a “mature and rational discussion” on the matter is necessary.

Regarding what measures should be taken to control debt and its interest costs, opinions vary. For example, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget advocates for keeping the federal unified budget deficit at 3% of GDP or less, while the current ratio is about 6%. This view has garnered support from some lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, including Michigan Republican Congressman Bill Huizenga and California Democratic Congressman Scott Peters, co-chairs of the Bipartisan Fiscal Forum. In fact, the entire guiding committee of the forum supports this proposal and has submitted related resolutions.

Arrington, however, advocates for more stringent measures. In contrast, the proposal to control the deficit at 3% of GDP seems more like a relatively broad goal, while Arrington hopes to push for writing fiscal discipline into the U.S. Constitution.

He stated last week, “A frustrating, thought-provoking, and shocking reality is that despite the looming fiscal crisis, Congress is paralyzed and unable to respond to the current urgent situation. Therefore, if Washington does not act, we should look beyond the capital. Article V of the Constitution provides us with another path, empowering states and the American people to intervene and demand fiscal discipline.”

“I call on Congress to convene a constitutional convention as provided for in Article V of the Constitution. It is time to restore reason to the capital and reverse the crisis hanging over this nation.”

Article V of the Constitution allows for amendments, such as setting constraints on borrowing and government spending. If two-thirds of state legislatures apply for it, Congress must convene a meeting; if three-quarters of states support the relevant amendments, those amendments can become law.

Other Pathways

In recent years, several U.S. presidents have attempted to improve the nation’s fiscal status. During President Obama’s administration, the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, widely known as the Simpson-Bowles Commission, was established. The commission ultimately proposed a series of recommendations, including cuts to discretionary spending, tax reform, and adjustments to healthcare spending structures.

President Trump proposed some more “unconventional” methods to balance the budget. For instance, he promoted a visa policy called the “Gold Card” plan, which would charge wealthy immigrants $5 million in exchange for a green card and a pathway to citizenship.

He stated last year, “If we issue 1 million ‘Gold Cards,’ the value is $5 trillion; if we sell 10 million, that’s $50 trillion. And our debt is $35 trillion, so that’s a good idea.”

Additionally, he wielded tariffs as a means to fill the revenue gap caused by policies like the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Although Trump’s tariff policies were controversial internationally, some economists still recognized these revenue-increasing “unconventional methods.” As Wharton School professor João Gomes previously stated in an interview with Fortune magazine, “You can’t deny that (Trump and his administration) brought some unusual sources of revenue, and that indeed changed the debt situation.” (Fortune Chinese Network)

Translator: Liu Jinlong

Editor: Wang Hao

The intellectual property rights of the content published by Fortune Chinese Network are exclusively owned or held by Fortune Media Intellectual Property Co., Ltd. and/or related rights holders. Without permission, any use such as reproduction, excerpting, copying, or creating mirrors is prohibited.