The national debt hasn’t been a major issue in the 2026 midterms. But perhaps it should be. As of last month, the United States is in debt to the tune of $40 trillion. That’s 12 zeros, which averages out to about $116,000 per American. 

It’s enough that even economists like Jared Bernstein, the chair of the US Council of Economic Advisers under President Joe Biden, is starting to worry. Bernstein has long argued that the national debt is nothing to worry about too seriously as long as servicing it — that is, paying the interest on it — remains manageable. 

Bernstein has since changed his tune. He told Today, Explained co-host Sean Rameswaram after last month’s debt milestone that while the number itself is “a big distraction,” two factors have him worried: Congress’s inaction and rising interest rates. But is it well and truly time to panic? Are we in a moment of no return? 

Below is an excerpt of Sean’s conversation with Bernstein, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify.

Have you now or ever been wrong about the national debt?

Yes. Who hasn’t?

Tell me what your position was and why you think it maybe was wrong.

A lot of the economic work on the national debt involves forecasting, predicting where things are going. And nobody can really forecast things like interest rates or when there’s going to be another recession or a war or a pandemic, so nobody could honestly answer that question with, “I’ve been right about everything.” 

But I feel good in the sense of being intellectually honest about how I’ve thought about this. When the numbers were pointing to a level of calmness about our fiscal outlook, even though lots of people had their hair on fire, I didn’t go there. I was pretty adamant that there wasn’t anything to be overly worried about at this point, for reasons that we can get into. 

When the numbers changed, and the outlook changed, and the politics changed, I changed.

Let’s start with why you thought it was okay to carry loads of debt in the first place, because that was your position for some time, right?

Correct. When you say loads of debt, the important thing is not just this load of debt or the stock of debt. Think of the debt as the water in the bathtub and think of the flow. Every year, you get a deficit or a surplus. That’s the water coming into the bathtub. 

If you have a large stock of debt or loads of debt, as you say, which we were carrying, what you really want to look at is: What’s the rate of interest? How much debt service do you have to pay to your creditors on that stock of debt? And as long as the interest rate stays pretty low and the country’s ability to service its debt is manageable, there’s no obvious reason to break out a sweat, even if there’s a lot of water in the bathtub. 

As long as you’re growing faster than your interest rate payments, as long as you’re not adding too much to the debt every year, underlying economic growth can allow you to service that debt without breaking a big economic sweat. And that’s where we were for a bunch of years. So that was the calm part.

Would you say you were part of an economic consensus in this country?

I would say yes, with an asterisk that maybe it was 50-50. Half of us who were watching it had hair that wasn’t burning up and the others had smoke coming out of their hats. 

By the way, there’s an interesting strain here that we shouldn’t miss because it becomes more and more relevant over time. Of the hair-on-fire group, there were two classes. One was genuinely freaked out, incorrectly in my view, and the other was a bunch of politicians who pretended to have their hair on fire, but really didn’t. 

“Don’t get hung up on the big, round number. It’s okay if your debt grows. It’s just not okay if your debt grows faster than your economy.”

These were — I used to call them chicken hawks. They were budget hawks, but they didn’t really want to do anything about it. And in fact, they consistently pushed in the wrong direction, which turned out to be kind of an important component of my apotheosis in this space.

Now, the big moment. Something happens at some point during this Trump administration that changes your mind. Tell us about it.

It wasn’t like at 2:37 pm on a particular day, just to be clear. I saw a number of things eroding and it wasn’t just during the Trump administration. 

Something flipped in my head a little bit because any kind of what we call a reaction function by Congress, to react to these unsustainable forecasts, looked dead to me. And then I started seeing some academic work that actually measured this and showed, lo and behold, Congress was no longer reacting to the budget outlook. That was part one. 

Part two is I started to see interest rates drift up. And if you’ll recall earlier, as I think you put it, interest rates found their way into the conversation. 

[Part three], we saw budget deficits that in normal times — the budget deficit, which again, that’s the water flowing into the tub — should be negative 2 to 3 percent. They’re 4, 5, and 6 percent. That’s almost a recessionary-level deficit. So you put those three things together and my head broke.

Do you think this congressional inaction or indifference to the debt was somehow seeded by decades of economists like yourself, saying, “This is okay”?

Let me flip that on you, because I don’t want to hold myself or my colleagues unaccountable, but I actually think the other side may be even more to blame or equally to blame in the sense of, they were saying the economy is about to explode for 30 years. And it didn’t. 

Now it is true that those of us — speaking for myself, I was saying, “We really ought to get our fiscal house in order, but we don’t need to worry about an immediate crisis. We have time to fix this.”

I was trying to be nuanced, but American politics doesn’t do nuance, so you can blame me for that.

Is the economy about to explode?

No. We still have time to fix this and the sooner we start, the better. 

When I talk about debt unsustainability and the potential for a debt spiral, I’m talking about over the next decade. I’m not talking about next week. The good news, Sean, is that there are ways to start repairing the damage. We can’t fill up the hole, but we can stop digging the hole. 

There are ways to stop digging the hole that are both good politics and good policy, and it has to do with reversing a bunch of tax cuts on the upper end of the income and wealth scale.

So what do we do? Do we just wait for a different administration?

That’s the answer for almost any good thing you want to do economically. I’m not saying this as a partisan: It’s very clear that this administration has caused all kinds of economic problems, but when you talk about the debt and deficit, I’ve tried to be pretty balanced in this conversation. 

It’s not just the [Republicans]. They’ve definitely made the biggest contribution to the unsustainable path through their relentless tax-cutting. But there was a time when I was in the Obama administration that we basically made permanent 80 percent of the Bush tax cuts. Republicans have been the lead flank in taking us to this unsustainable place, but too often the Democrats have not reversed those measures and in fact have, in some cases, endorsed them. 

And you seem to think that this is within reach, that we’re just a few steps away from making $40 trillion look more like $30 trillion or $20 trillion?

That’s an interesting question, because it’s probably making $40 trillion look more like $41 or $42 [trillion] rather than $44 or $45 trillion. 

But again, Sean, don’t get hung up on the big, round number. It’s okay if your debt grows. It’s just not okay if your debt grows faster than your economy. 

As long as the economy’s growing faster than the debt, which used to be the case, then that ratio’s going to come down. So it’s okay if the debt accumulates a little bit more. What’s not okay is if it just keeps spiraling and the growth rate decelerates.

So let’s keep it around $40 trillion. That’s the takeaway.

No, that’s not the takeaway. Sorry. I think $40 trillion is a big distraction. I’m not glad we’re there, but at least we’re talking about it. 

I think the key thing is the debt ratio, the debt relative to the economy. I think we can get back on a path where debt to GDP doesn’t just keep growing in good times and bad. It stabilizes in good times, maybe even comes down a little bit in good times because the economy’s growing faster than the debt — the denominator’s growing faster than the numerator, if you will. 

I think it’s plausible, but it would mean very different people, a very different composition of people in Congress and the White House.

My new takeaway is, “Keep the debt in check.”

Love it.

The Republican Party is once again asking the Supreme Court to change the rules governing US elections in order to make it easier for GOP candidates to prevail in future elections. And this Court, with its 6-3 Republican majority, will likely give the GOP what it is asking for.

National Republican Congressional Committee v. Brown concerns a federal statute that requires broadcast television and radio stations to allow candidates to buy campaign ads at a highly discounted rate. 

The question in Brown is whether political party committees such as the DNC or the RNC are also entitled to this discounted rate. A federal appeals court determined that they are not, as the relevant statute only extends this rate to “a legally qualified candidate for any public office,” and not to that candidate’s political party. The GOP now wants the justices to give its party committees this discounted rate anyway. If the justices agree, that would give Republicans an advantage in future elections, because the GOP tends to raise more money through its party organizations than Democrats do.

While individual Democratic candidates often outraise their Republican opponents, Republican donors tend to be much more generous to party committees than their Democratic counterparts. As of late June, for example, the RNC had nearly $130 million in cash, while the DNC was in debt.

A Republican victory in the case would also increase the significance of another win the Supreme Court handed the GOP in June 2025, in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC (2026). Federal law previously placed strict limits on a party organization’s ability to coordinate with candidates on messaging, ad placement, and similar tactical decisions. NRSC abolished many of those limits, thus making money raised by party committees more potent because those committees may now work closely with candidates to plan how that money is spent.

Brown, meanwhile, could make any dollar that a party committee spends on ads stretch much further than it otherwise would.

The GOP’s argument that federal law allows party committees to buy ads at a discount is not persuasive. Again, the relevant federal statute gives a discount to candidates and not to parties. 

But that’s unlikely to matter because the GOP’s brief to the Court does make a plausible procedural argument that would allow the justices to wipe away the lower court decision ruling against the Republican Party. If that happens, it would leave the question of whether parties may buy ads at a discount to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which Republicans control.

It will be fairly easy, in other words, for the Court’s Republican majority to rule in favor of their political party in Brown, in the likely event that those six justices are inclined to do so. And that means that the RNC’s money advantage over Democratic groups is about to matter a whole lot more.

A GOP victory in Brown would augment the party’s recent victory in NRSC

Brown is part of a broader Republican Party legal strategy, which seeks to make money donated to the party itself as fungible as possible with money given to individual Republican candidates. The GOP’s recent victory in NRSC is also part of this strategy.

Federal law limits the amount of money donors may give directly to candidates — the cap on these donations is currently $3,500. It also restricts how much money donors may give to party committees such as the DNC or the RNC, but that cap is much higher. It is $44,300 per donor per year in the current election cycle.

Campaign finance law also used to prevent party committees from coordinating their political spending with individual campaigns — the idea was to prevent big donors from laundering donations that exceed the $3,500 cap on donations to candidates through party committees like the RNC. But, in NRSC, the Republican justices repealed most of the restrictions on coordination between party committees and individual candidates. 

So the upshot of that decision is that party organizations may still seek donations from wealthy donors that are an order of magnitude larger than what candidates may raise from those same donors. But now, there are far fewer restrictions on these party organizations’ ability to work with candidates to devise a joint strategy for spending their combined funds.

But, because party organizations are not themselves candidates, the language of the statute at issue in Brown indicates that these organizations must pay significantly higher rates to run these ads than the campaigns the party hopes to coordinate with. 

This statute essentially requires broadcast stations to charge their lowest ad rate to candidates. Often, major advertisers buy ads in bulk, and receive a significant discount for doing so. By law, broadcast stations must give the same discount to candidates for public office that they give to advertisers who buy ads at the cheapest rate offered by that station. So, if a local TV station allows Budweiser to buy ads at a 50 percent discount because the beer maker runs hundreds of ads on that station, then it must give this same 50 percent discount to political candidates, even if those candidates only run a handful of ads.

The legal term for this discounted rate is the “lowest unit charge” or “LUC rate,” and these discounts can be quite substantial. A somewhat dated report by the Congressional Research Service estimates that bulk ad discounts are as high as 30 percent, while a more recent news article by the congressional newspaper Roll Call estimates that occasional ad buyers may pay “two or three times” as much per ad as an advertiser who secures the best discount.

So, the Supreme Court has already given the GOP greater ability to coordinate strategy and tactics with individual campaigns. And now it wants the much-larger donations that party committees can raise from wealthy donors to go even further than they already do.

Republicans want Trump’s FCC, and not the courts, to decide who gets the discounted rate

The Republican Party’s primary argument in Brown is that two procedural quirks in this case work together to prevent federal courts from enforcing the statute as it is written (although the GOP does also argue that the statute gives party committees the same discounted rate as candidates).

Last March, while NRSC was still pending before the justices, Trump’s FCC issued a “Public Notice” declaring that political parties are, in fact, entitled to the discounted ad rates that federal law guarantees to candidates. Four Democratic candidates, including US Senate candidates Sherrod Brown, Roy Cooper, and Jon Ossoff formally asked the FCC to reverse that policy in April, but the FCC sat on their request without acting on it.

With the 2026 election looming and no action from the FCC, these candidates then asked the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to intervene in late June, and, in a late August decision, the Fourth Circuit agreed with the Democratic candidates that the FCC’s interpretation of the law governing ad rates is wrong.

Republicans, meanwhile, argue that the Fourth Circuit decided this case prematurely. If the Supreme Court agrees with the GOP’s argument, that would mean that the FCC’s interpretation of the statute would go back into effect — and party committees would be allowed to buy ads at a discount, at least during the 2026 election.

The Republican Party’s jurisdictional argument is plausible, but far from airtight. While a federal law does permit the Fourth Circuit to review the FCC’s “final orders,” the GOP argues that the FCC’s Public Notice does not count as a final order, and the Fourth Circuit cannot hear this case until after the FCC rules on the Democratic candidates’ April request to reverse the policy announced in that notice.

There is some legal support for the Republican Party’s position. Among other things, a different federal appeals court, the DC Circuit, said in a 2013 opinion that a federal agency’s “statements of policy” that do not go through the rigorous rulemaking process that agencies must conduct before they issue a new regulation are typically not subject to judicial review. So that decision cuts in favor of the Republican Party’s position, even though a DC Circuit decision is not binding on the Supreme Court.

The Fourth Circuit’s decision in Brown, meanwhile, offers a strong rebuttal to this argument. It points to the FCC’s failure to act on the Democratic candidates’ April request, and it cites a different DC Circuit decision establishing that, “when administrative inaction has precisely the same impact on the rights of the parties as denial of relief,” then a federal court is allowed to intervene.

If this rule did not exist, then the GOP-led FCC could effectively prevent courts from hearing Brown forever, simply by refusing to take any action at all on the Democratic candidates’ April filing.

In any event, it is safe to say that the question of whether these Democratic candidates must wait until the FCC acts before they can seek relief in federal court is not definitively resolved by prior precedents. Both the Republican Party and the Democratic candidates can cite court decisions that favor their position, and that means that the justices can choose whichever outcome they prefer.

The Supreme Court’s Republican majority, moreover, often hands down dubious jurisdictional rulings that benefit Republicans or other conservative causes. Just this week, for example, five of the Republican justices ruled that Trump may build his White House ballroom — even though a federal statute prohibits Trump from doing so. They reached this result by claiming, on far-fetched legal grounds, that federal courts lacked jurisdiction to hear the challenge to Trump’s ballroom in the first place.

The Republican Party’s jurisdictional argument in Brown is hardly a slam dunk, but it is much stronger than the argument the Court just used to deny jurisdiction in the ballroom case. So, if the Court’s Republican majority wants to let Republican organizations buy ads at a discounted rate, they’ll probably find it easy to write an opinion that reaches their preferred outcome.