As of March 2026, the total U.S. national debt has surpassed $39 trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury. The number that was commonly cited through most of 2025 was $36 trillion — where it sat when the conversation around national debt became particularly loud following Moody's credit downgrade in May 2025. It has grown by roughly $1 trillion every three to four months, or approximately $2.2 trillion over fiscal year 2025 alone.

That is a number so large it resists intuition. So before discussing what it means, it helps to understand what it is — because the headline figure combines several different things that behave very differently.

The national debt has two components. The first and more economically meaningful portion is debt held by the public — money the federal government has actually borrowed from outside lenders through financial markets. Investors, foreign governments, domestic pension funds, banks, and the Federal Reserve all own pieces of this debt in the form of Treasury bills, notes, and bonds. As of early 2026, this figure is approximately $31 trillion, representing around 97% of GDP. Economists treat this as the most meaningful measure of the debt burden because it reflects genuine obligations to outside creditors.

The second component is intra-governmental debt — approximately $7.4 trillion that one part of the federal government owes to another. The Social Security Trust Fund is the largest example. When Social Security collects more in payroll taxes than it pays out in benefits, the surplus is invested in Treasury securities. This creates a bookkeeping entry that appears as debt, but it is the government owing money to itself rather than to outside creditors. While it represents a real future obligation — those Social Security benefits will eventually need to be paid — it behaves very differently from debt owed to an outside investor.

The Important Distinction: When economists say "the national debt is a concern," they are almost always talking about debt held by the public — the $31 trillion owed to actual outside lenders. When politicians cite the total $36-39 trillion figure, they are often including the intragovernmental component. Both are real obligations, but they have very different implications for markets, interest rates, and investor behavior.

These two terms are frequently used interchangeably in political discourse, but they mean completely different things and it matters to understand both.

The deficit is the annual shortfall between what the government spends and what it collects in taxes and other revenues in a given fiscal year. In fiscal year 2025, the federal budget deficit was approximately $1.8 trillion — meaning the government spent $1.8 trillion more than it took in. This was added to the existing pile of debt.

The national debt is the cumulative total of all those annual deficits going back over decades, minus the rare occasions when there were surpluses. The U.S. last ran a budget surplus during the Clinton administration in the late 1990s. Every year since, the deficit has added to the debt total. The debt is the bathtub; the deficit is the rate at which water is flowing in.

One of the most persistent misconceptions about the national debt is that it is primarily owned by foreign governments — China in particular — and that this gives those governments dangerous leverage over the United States. The actual ownership breakdown is considerably more nuanced, and the foreign exposure is substantially smaller than most people assume.

The numbers tell a story very different from the political narrative. China — frequently cited as the entity that could weaponize U.S. debt holdings — owns approximately 2% of total U.S. federal debt. China's holdings have actually been declining for years, falling from a peak of over 25% of all foreign-held U.S. debt in 2010 to its current share. Japan, the largest foreign creditor, holds approximately $1.06 trillion — about 3% of total debt.

The majority of U.S. debt — roughly 42% — is held by domestic U.S. investors, institutions, and funds. Your 401(k), your pension plan, the bond fund in your retirement portfolio — these collectively represent one of the largest categories of U.S. debt holders. In a meaningful sense, Americans largely owe this debt to other Americans.

The China Leverage Myth: Could China sell its U.S. Treasury holdings as an economic weapon? In theory. In practice, the damage would fall on China too. Selling $760 billion of Treasuries rapidly would tank the price of those securities, causing China massive losses on its remaining holdings. It would also strengthen the yuan relative to the dollar, hurting Chinese exports. Former Fed Chair Janet Yellen and numerous economists have noted that the nuclear option of dumping Treasuries would be as destructive for the seller as the target.

This is the question that generates the most heat and the least light in public discourse. The answer is: yes, but not in the way most people think, and the risks are long-term and gradual rather than immediate and catastrophic.

Here is the clearest way to frame it. A country's debt sustainability is best understood not by the absolute dollar amount — which is a number that means nothing without context — but by the ratio of debt to GDP and the cost of servicing that debt as a share of revenue. Both of those metrics have been deteriorating in the United States, and that is where the genuine concern lives.

The most concrete and measurable consequence of the national debt is the cost of servicing it. In fiscal year 2025, interest payments on the national debt reached approximately $1.2 trillion, according to the Government Accountability Office. To put that in perspective: in fiscal year 2022, interest payments were approximately $500 billion. They have more than doubled in three years. Interest payments now consume approximately 34% of U.S. tax revenue, leaving 66% for everything else the government does: defense, Social Security, Medicare, infrastructure, and all discretionary spending.

In 2024, federal interest payments exceeded spending on both Medicare and national defense — for the first time ever. If borrowing costs remain elevated and the debt continues to grow, the CBO projects interest will consume approximately 30% of revenues by 2035. Some projections suggest it could approach 40% by 2040. That trajectory, if sustained, meaningfully constrains the government's ability to respond to a recession, fund a war, or address a crisis without making hard choices about what to cut or who to tax.

A second real concern is what economists call crowding out. The basic theory is that when the government borrows heavily, it competes with private borrowers for a finite pool of savings and capital, which puts upward pressure on interest rates across the economy. Higher interest rates make it more expensive for businesses to invest, for homebuyers to take out mortgages, and for consumers to carry credit card debt.

The textbook version of crowding out has not played out as predicted over the past 20 years, partly because several powerful offsetting forces have been at work. The Federal Reserve's quantitative easing programs created a large, price-insensitive buyer of Treasury securities. Global demand for U.S. dollar-denominated assets means foreign capital has poured into Treasuries even as U.S. borrowing increased. These forces held rates lower than the debt levels alone might have suggested.

But those offsetting forces are not permanent or guaranteed. The Fed has been reducing its balance sheet since 2022. Foreign appetite for U.S. debt, while still substantial, has diversified over time. If either of those shifts accelerates — or if confidence in U.S. fiscal management deteriorates — the crowding out effect could become more pronounced.

On May 16, 2025, Moody's Ratings downgraded the United States' long-term credit rating from its highest rating of Aaa to Aa1 — making it the last of the three major rating agencies to strip the U.S. of its top-tier status. S&P had downgraded the U.S. in 2011. Fitch followed in 2023. Moody's held out until 2025, finally citing the same concern that drove the others: rising debt levels paired with a persistent inability of Congress to implement fiscal reforms.

The downgrade also extended to major U.S. banks. Moody's downgraded the long-term ratings of JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo, reasoning that banks holding significant amounts of U.S. government debt carry slightly more risk if those Treasuries are considered slightly less safe.

What did the downgrade actually do? Less than feared, but more than nothing. Treasury yields temporarily moved higher — bond investors, at the margin, demanded slightly higher compensation for what was newly defined as slightly less safe debt. The dollar came under modest pressure. Long-term mortgage rates, which track Treasury yields, saw some upward pressure. The S&P 500 sold off briefly before recovering. The market's conclusion, consistent with what happened after the 2011 S&P downgrade and the 2023 Fitch downgrade, was that this was a warning signal rather than a crisis trigger.

The Most Clear-Eyed Quote on the Downgrade: "The government deficit isn't a problem until investors think it is." — Callie Cox, Chief Market Strategist at Ritholtz Wealth Management, speaking to Axios in May 2025. This captures the essential paradox of sovereign debt analysis: the moment at which debt becomes a market crisis is largely determined by investor confidence, which can shift faster than the underlying fundamentals that should theoretically drive it.

The United States cannot default involuntarily on debt denominated in its own currency in the way a household or a corporation can. The U.S. government has the constitutional authority to direct the Federal Reserve to create money, which can always be used to service dollar-denominated debt. This is not a trivial distinction. It is why the U.S. has never missed a debt payment in its history — through the Civil War, the Great Depression, World War II, the 2008 financial crisis, and multiple debt ceiling crises.

This does not mean default is impossible. A political failure to raise the debt ceiling — as has been threatened repeatedly — could technically prevent the Treasury from making payments even if the underlying fiscal capacity exists. But that would be a self-imposed political default, not an organic fiscal one. The risk of a market-driven fiscal collapse in the United States is genuinely low compared to countries that borrow in currencies they do not control.

The generational framing of debt is emotionally resonant but economically incomplete. A significant portion of U.S. Treasury securities mature within one to three years and are constantly being rolled over. When a Treasury bill matures, the government issues a new one to replace it. The "debt to our grandchildren" is, in large part, debt that today's investors are rolling over today, earning interest along the way, and that future generations will continue to roll over.

More importantly: future generations will also inherit the assets, infrastructure, institutions, and economic capacity that government spending creates. Debt incurred for productive investment — infrastructure, education, research — transfers both the liability and the asset. Debt incurred for consumption spending with no lasting return is a more legitimate concern on intergenerational grounds. The composition of what the debt financed matters, not just the total.

At approximately 97% of GDP for debt held by the public, the U.S. ratio is elevated by historical standards but not at historically unprecedented levels globally. Japan's debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds 250% of GDP and Japan has borrowed for decades at near-zero interest rates. Italy, Greece, and Portugal all carry ratios well above 100% without fiscal collapse. What distinguishes the U.S. is the dollar's status as the world's primary reserve currency, which creates structural global demand for U.S. Treasury securities that no other nation enjoys. This reserve currency premium provides a substantial buffer that pure debt ratios do not capture.

The national debt, in isolation, is not a useful input for most investment decisions. Markets have generated strong long-term returns across periods of rising debt levels, government downgrades, and deficit expansion. Reacting to debt headlines by dramatically repositioning a portfolio has historically been costly.

That said, there are specific mechanisms through which debt levels affect investment outcomes, and tracking those is worthwhile:

The national debt is real, growing rapidly, and carries genuine long-term risks that deserve serious attention — particularly the rising cost of interest payments, the crowding out of productive investment, and the erosion of fiscal flexibility for future crises. These are not theoretical. They show up in the federal budget every year.

But the debt is not a clock counting down to an imminent collapse. The U.S. dollar's reserve currency status, the depth and liquidity of the Treasury market, the domestic ownership of the majority of U.S. debt, and the government's ultimate monetary authority all provide substantial buffers that most countries do not enjoy. The United States has been running deficits and accumulating debt for most of its modern history. Markets have continued to function. Treasuries have remained the global safe haven asset. A AAA rating downgrade to AA1 at Moody's did not change the fundamental nature of that market.

What has changed — and what the Moody's downgrade was correctly signaling — is that the era of effectively consequence-free borrowing, enabled by ultra-low interest rates and unlimited global appetite for dollar assets, may be ending. The debt that cost 9% of revenues to service in 2021 now costs 34%. If rates stay elevated and the debt continues to grow at its current pace, that ratio will keep climbing. The question is not whether it matters — it does. The question is when investor confidence shifts from patient tolerance of U.S. fiscal imbalances to active concern, and what the trigger will be. As one strategist put it: "The government deficit isn't a problem until investors think it is." We are not there yet. But we are closer than we were.

_{^{All sources accessed April 2026. For informational and educational purposes only.}}

_{^{[1] U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data. "Understanding the National Debt." fiscaldata.treasury.gov (updated continuously).}}

_{^{[2] U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). "Financial Audit: Bureau of the Fiscal Service's FY 2025 and FY 2024 Schedules of Federal Debt." gao.gov, January 20, 2026.}}

_{^{[3] Wikipedia. "National Debt of the United States." en.wikipedia.org (citing Treasury data as of March 2026).}}

_{^{[4] Al Jazeera. "The US Has $36 Trillion in Debt. What Does That Mean, and Who Owns It?" aljazeera.com, May 20, 2025.}}

_{^{[5] Peter G. Peterson Foundation (PGPF). "The Federal Government Has Borrowed Trillions. Who Owns All That Debt?" pgpf.org, March 2026.}}

_{^{[6] First Trust Advisors. "Who Really Owns America's $36 Trillion Debt?" ftportfolios.com, April 24, 2025.}}

_{^{[7] The Journalist's Resource / Shorenstein Center. "How and Why the Government Borrows Money." journalistsresource.org, September 3, 2025.}}

_{^{[8] Clearnomics / MAI Capital. "How the $36 Trillion National Debt Impacts Investors." mai.capital, November 18, 2025.}}

_{^{[9] CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies). "Moody's Downgrade Signals Deeper Risk: Is U.S. Debt Undermining Global Leadership?" csis.org, May 20, 2025.}}

_{^{[10] University of Colorado Boulder. "What the US Credit Downgrade Means for the Economy and Your Wallet." colorado.edu, May 21, 2025.}}

_{^{[11] McGraw Hill / MHEducation Blog. "Understanding the U.S. Credit Downgrade." mheducation.com, June 12, 2025.}}

_{^{[12] Zacks Investment Management. "How Big a Deal Is the Moody's Downgrade of U.S. Credit?" zacksim.com, May 28, 2025.}}

_{^{[13] Fidelity Investments. "Does the US Debt Downgrade Matter for Investors?" fidelity.com, May 20, 2025.}}

_{^{[14] Providence Wealth Advisors. "Moody's Downgraded U.S. Debt: Does It Matter?" providencewealth.com, June 16, 2025.}}

_{^{[15] Western Asset Management. "End of an Era: Moody's Downgrades US to Aa1." westernasset.com, May 19, 2025.}}

_{^{[16] Axios. "The Real Message of the Moody's Downgrade." axios.com, May 19, 2025. (Citing Callie Cox, Ritholtz Wealth Management.)}}

_{^{[17] Commons Capital. "Investors Should Know: Impact of Federal Deficit on Long-Term Interest Rates." commonsllc.com, March 5, 2026.}}

_{^{[18] Bipartisan Policy Center. "National Debt Passing $36 Trillion Calls for Swift Bipartisan Action in 2025." bipartisanpolicy.org, September 4, 2025.}}

DISCLAIMER

This article is published by Brezco Analytics for informational and educational purposes only. Nothing contained herein constitutes financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. All information is believed to be from reliable sources but is not guaranteed. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Always conduct your own due diligence and consult a licensed financial advisor before making any investment decisions.

© 2026 Brezco Analytics  |  brezcoanalytics.com  |  All Rights Reserved