Interest Rates Are Falling—Thank Government Spending Cuts for That
Cuts to government spending mean fewer bonds, lower borrowing costs, and potentially a break for borrowers.

The 10-year interest rate has fallen by half a percentage point in the past month—from approximately 4.8 percent to 4.3 percent. Several factors determine interest rates, including inflation and economic growth, but perhaps the most consequential is the supply of and demand for government bonds.
If the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) continues at its current pace—which according to its website includes approximately $52 billion in cuts to date—it could possibly cut $1 trillion in spending in its first year. This will mean $1 trillion fewer bonds being issued, reducing the overall bond supply. A lower supply drives the bond price higher, and because bond prices move inversely to interest rates, this will result in materially lower interest rates. This shift is already being reflected in the bond market.
Government borrowing "crowds out" private borrowing—a concept familiar to anyone who has taken a high school economics class. Essentially, the government gets to borrow first, in the form of treasury bonds, and you get to borrow second, in forms such as a mortgage or a car loan. The more the government borrows, the more it pushes up interest rates, which results in higher interest rates on things like homes and automobiles.
If the government hadn't borrowed so much money during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, it's likely that mortgage rates right now would be lower—perhaps significantly lower. The typical 30-year fixed-rate mortgage is about 7 percent at the moment. If mortgage rates were one percent lower, the monthly payment on a $400,000, 30-year mortgage would be about $260 lower. This is the impact the deficit has on your personal finances.
Pierre Poilievre, the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, has relentlessly attacked Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's deficits and bloated bureaucracy. Poilievre has managed to translate out-of-control government spending into language everyone can understand—the "crowding out" effect results in higher debt service payments for you.
Poilievre, who would become Canada's next Prime Minister if the Conservatives win a majority government in the upcoming election, was winning on this message for a while. However, when President Donald Trump said that he was going to annex Canada and threatened punishing tariffs, Canadian citizens rediscovered their sense of patriotism, and sentiment has since swung back towards the incumbent Liberal Party. The election now remains a toss-up.
Had the U.S. maintained a balanced budget over the last decade—or even kept deficits to two or three percent of gross domestic product (GDP)—10-year interest rates would likely be in the 2 percent to 3 percent range. This would mean average mortgage rates would be about 4.5 percent to 5.5 percent. For the first time, DOGE is giving the financial community hope that the deficit might one day return to manageable levels. Interest rates have dropped half a percent in the last month, and it's hard to attribute that to one cause or another, but the buzz is that it's because of DOGE's deficit-cutting efforts.
Elon Musk certainly believes as much. "The bond markets do not currently reflect the savings that I'm confident we can achieve," he said during a discussion he led on X. "If you're shorting bonds, I think you're on the wrong side of the bet."
The Biden administration's spending policies contributed to inflation and were very bad for the bond market. In his second term, Trump—along with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent—has placed a stronger emphasis on lowering long-term interest rates. They see the debt as a national security issue, a view shared by economic historian Niall Ferguson who recently proposed what he calls "Ferguson's Law." He says that "any great power that spends more on debt servicing than on defense"—as recently happened in the U.S.—"risks ceasing to be a great power."
The interest payments on the federal debt are $1.1 trillion and rising—rising in part because much of the debt assumed during the pandemic is still being rolled over into higher interest rates. Trump and Bessent have made it a top priority to get rates down, and DOGE is central to that effort.
Republicans have put the Democrats in a difficult position in that they are arguing against something that should be common sense—cutting government spending—which is never a good position for a political party. The deficit was never going to be reduced by papers and essays. Realistically, it takes someone like Argentina's Javier Milei or Musk—risk-takers who are willing to actually fight the bureaucracy.
For the first time in too long, interest rates are falling due to the real possibility of reduced bond issuance. This is at least one aspect of the Trump administration that should be applauded.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Eliminating needless and expensive bureaucracies will save the US taxpayers billions of dollars, cut spending and assist in paying off the debt.
I wonder who in the House and the Senate would be against this idea?
All of them except Massie and Paul.
There are actually quite a few in the house in favor of eliminating whole departments, and many more in favor of deep cuts in spending. And they're all from one party, despite Reason's belief that boff sidez are equally as bad on everything all the time.
The Senate, however, is the ultimate branch of "go along to get along" and "never cut anything." What they like to portray as being the adults in the room is actually a group of abject cowards who all think they're going to be the next president. Rand Paul most be one lonely MFer.
Aaaah, but Pam Bondi is preparing the "go to jail free" card and that will do the job. Imagine a Sen Menendez facing Trump ....all those gold bars -- OF COURSE PAM KNOWS , OF COURSE 🙂
Is this the same Niall Ferguson of COVID lockdown fame?
I suppose being totally, catastrophically wrong about one issue does not automatically mean that one is wrong about another issue, but his track record does not look promising to date ...
Why is there a market demand for treasury bonds at all? Claims that the US government is broke or on the brink of bankruptcy have persisted for decades now. Why is there such demand to buy a seat on a sinking ship? It almost seems like the market doesn't pay much heed to those broke/looming bankruptcy claims. Congress sure doesn't, they want to sell another 2-4 trillion worth of bonds in order to finance upper bracket tax cuts. Congress is not telling foreign investors not to buy the bonds the US is broke. Instead they are telling American citizens that health care has to be slashed because the US is broke.
Because for all of America's problems, we're still the least rickety lifeboat on the global Titanic, and because the stock market is massively overvalued and is going to have a major downturn at some point (that's why Buffett pulled almost all of money out several months ago).
Also, there are institutions and wealth funds that are actually required by law to buy U.S. treasuries, so the demand can never go completely all the way down to zero.
Because US government bonds are the risk-free collateral underlying hundreds of trillions of US dollar-denominated debt at the core of the banking system worldwide.
Simple , it's the Kamala approach : I will be home lolling in the dough and the necklace...while my lesserl-offs are facing a Depression.
" Kamala Harris delivered a speech at The Economic Club of Pittsburgh—where she wore a $60k Tiffany’s necklace while discussing her ability to relate to the middle class. "
"Ferguson's Law: any great power that spends more on debt servicing than on defense risks ceasing to be a great power."
Recent examples of great powers ceasing to be great powers, please? It's only a "law" if there are at least several examples of former great powers with supporting evidence that the reason they're no longer members of the great powers club is spending more on debt servicing than they spent on defense with no counterexamples.
The UK is an easy one
Counter-example: UK retakes the Falklands from Argentina. Sorry, but the UK is still a "great power" using any definition you care to apply. But if you have data to support the notion that the UK spends more on debt service than they do on defense, please feel free to provide it for our consideration.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_national_debt
Cost of servicing the debt - 3% of GDP
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime-minister-sets-out-biggest-sustained-increase-in-defence-spending-since-the-cold-war-protecting-british-people-in-new-era-for-national-security
Defense spending <2.5% GDP
I almost didn’t oblige and considered putting you on ignore after the “UK is a Great Power by any definition”. That was true from 1588-1942.
Thanks. My research on UK defense vs debt service spending turned up a lot of complex detail I didn't have time to wade through and no bottom line yet. I still stand by my assertion that the UK is still a "great power" which you have not yet refuted with a definition of great power whose criteria the UK - a nuclear power with a seat at the UN Security Council and a global-reach Naval force - does not meet.
According to this site, the UK is not a navy with global reach anymore.
Ranks ninth behind US, China, Russia, Indonesia, Korea, Japan, India, and France. But at least they are #4 in the North Atlantic.
And the US is now spending more on debt service than on defense
The Falklands was *in the 1980's*. Its 2025 now in case you missed it.
What the UK could do against a 6th rate military in 1982 is not the same thing it could do today.
Hitler said that 🙂
This is at least one aspect of the Trump administration that should be applauded.
Is this article praising Trump? Nope. Can't be. Move along. Nothing to see here.
You forgot to post this in the Britches article.
Rates are moving down because the economy is slowing, last week we saw dismal consumer confidence, service sector in contraction and this week we are getting miserable housing data, and will be in recession shortly if we are not already in one
Agreed. I also suggest that it is 'way too soon for "spending cuts" (if any) to have impacted interest rates.
Yes. President Musk hasn't delivered any actual spending cuts. Most of his claims are false or pure fantasy. Even headcount reductions haven't had an impact yet since people are being paid through September 30 (end of fiscal year) when they take the buyout.
If the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) continues at its current pace—which according to its website includes approximately $52 billion in cuts to date—it could possibly cut $1 trillion in spending in its first year.
What a fucking tool. The DOGE website has absolutely nothing to do with actual government spending. That would be the Treasury department. Which would also be the source for info about tax revenues. The NYFed would probably be the best source for the portion of spending funded by debt - though I assume Treasury also has that.
DOGE has every incentive to simply make shit up. Or do what bureaucracies have done for decades - create savings and reduce spending the same way housewives have also done. By spending less on a purse and therefore saving tons of money. The more you spend, the more you save.
Apparently you have the same mindset.
As of the writing of the article, the claim of DOGE that according to its website includes approximately $52 billion in cuts to date has already been shown to be absolute bullshit. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/18/upshot/doge-contracts-musk-trump.html
And yet, you put this in your article. Shame!!!
And the Treasury has no incentive to make shit up?
What about the Department of Labor? Who, every month, 'revised' the 'mistaken' job report down from what they reported several months ago, all during the Biden administration?
Republicans talk a good game about spending and budgeting, but those pesky facts always trip them up. The last time we weren't running deficits was during the Clinton presidency. Then Dubya came in and gave away the farm through tax cuts and fighting his Daddy's Revenge war on Iraq. Here's the numbers:
US Federal Budget Deficits & (Surpluses)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush Sr 1992 : ($290 billion) deficit
Clinton 1993 : ($255 billion) deficit
Clinton 1994 : ($203 billion) deficit
Clinton 1995 : ($164 billion) deficit
Clinton 1996 : ($107 billion) deficit
Clinton 1997 : ($22 billion) deficit
Clinton 1998 : $69 billion surplus
Clinton 1999 : $126 billion surplus
Clinton 2000 : $236 billion surplus
Clinton 2001 : $128 billion surplus
Bush Jr 2002 : ($158 billion) deficit
Bush Jr 2003 : ($378 billion) deficit
Bush Jr 2004 : ($413 billion) deficit
But . . . I'm told that the cuts are being done wrong, they're really not that much anyway, and we're going to kill people if we cut that not much money at all!!!11!!
The Economist's Economist Gary Becker was of the opinion that recovery plans like Biden's are BOUND TO FAIL because all that intense regulation and govt interference and legal red tape scares almost every small and middle-sized business into doing NOTHING
So the trillions to bring the economy back RUINED THAT ECONOMY and energized inflation See, Biden spent 50 sub-sub-standard years in govt , he has no idea what a working man or a business owner thinks . NONE
And his Democratic Congress:
"More than half of those in Congress are millionaires, data from lawmakers’ most recent personal financial disclosures shows. The median net worth of members of Congress who filed disclosures last year is just over $1 million. "
YOU do remember, faux eprerts, that
"Kamala Harris delivered a speech at The Economic Club of Pittsburgh—where she wore a $60k Tiffany’s necklace while discussing her ability to relate to the middle class. "
Bwaa-haaa-haaa!!!! You're hilarious!!!!
Questioning the risks and benefits of vaccines isn’t spreading misinformation
by Marc Siegel, 02/25/25
"Consider that none other than Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett-Helair, co-developer of the COVID-19 vaccine and renowned viral immunologist at the Harvard School of Public Health, wrote an opinion piece last June in STAT saying that more empathy is needed for those who report experiencing long-term side effects from the COVID vaccines.
“People who speak out about how they feel after getting a vaccine should not be dismissed or assumed to be anti-vaxxers,” she wrote. “For starters, they deserve empathy from their doctors and other health care providers, as well as from those who set and drive vaccine policy.”"
I myself got 2 COVID shots and doc wanted me to get regular updates. TERRIBLE DECISION. I did it for an immuno-compromised famly member but even she now won't get the shots. Too much lying and coercing plus Biden's obvious asshole stupidity on the subject and smirking Fauci's contempt for people like me. LIVE WITH IT