U.S. Treasury has borrowed $155 billion every month of this fiscal year—and is now paying $24 billion a week in interest on its debts 33%

By Eleanor Pringle67%

7/10/2026, 10:36:13 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Biased Writer Voice, and Indoctrination, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 50.3% saturation with 329 hits. Analysis detected 1,782 faulty-reasoning hits from 654 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 41.4% and a BS Rank of 33% (14,749 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 67.40% of the article peer group.

Despite concerns from debt hawks, the U.S. government is continuing to borrow at pace: For the fiscal year of 2026 so far, the federal deficit has totaled just under $1.4 trillion. 
The first nine months of this fiscal year (beginning in October) have now surpassed the borrowing levels of 2025, when deficits totaled just over $1.3 trillion for the same period. 
At the time of writing, the total U.S. national debt sits at $39.4 trillion , accumulated under administrations led by both Republicans and Democrats. 
As such, the monthly borrowing for 2026 now sits at roughly $155 billion, or $39 billion per week. 
And, like any borrower, that debt carries an interest cost . 
The latest monthly budget review from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) confirms that net interest on public debt for the fiscal year has hit $857 billion: roughly $23.8 billion a week. 
This is approximately $100 billion more (13%) than the interest paid out in the first nine months of 2025, the CBO adds, owing to a higher total debt burden than last year and higher long-term interest rates. 
In fact, interest payments on the debt are now $20 billion larger than the outlays for the Departments of Defense, Commerce, Homeland Security, Education, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Small Business Administration, and the U.S. 
Coronavirus Refundable Credits scheme—combined. 
Also contributing to the demand on government purse springs is the increasing demand for social security, Medicare and Medicaid. 
Spending for Social Security benefits rose by $62 billion (or 5%) because of increases in average benefits and in the number of beneficiaries, CBO noted. 
In comparison, Medicare outlays increased by $58 billion (8%) due to higher enrollment and higher payment rates for services. 
Rising costs per enrollee meant Medicaid spending increased by $49 billion (10%). 
This is a trend that isn’t going anywhere: The U.S. population is aging. 
According to the Census Bureau, Americans’ median age—the age at which half of the population is younger, and half is older  continues to rise, climbing from 39.2 in 2024 to 39.4 in 2025. 
Men’s share of the older population is particularly of note, the bureau adds. 
In 2001, there were 70.6 males for every 100 females age 65 and older, but by 2025, the ratio had increased substantially to 81.6. 
Debt trajectory 
With the factors influencing Treasury spending only embedding further over the coming decades, those concerned about the U.S. fiscal trajectory are calling for action. 
So far, they haven’t got much response—though there is a growing sense of urgency among policymakers, according to experts. 
The latest CBO estimates have alarmed the likes of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget which, for a long time, has been lobbying the government to address its borrowing. 
In a statement shared with Fortune, Maya MacGuineas, president of the committee, said: “The FY 2026 deficit has now passed the FY 2025 deficit–and it is likely to stay that way for the rest of the fiscal year  We will likely borrow $2 trillion or more this fiscal year—an astounding figure given that the economy keeps growing and unemployment is low.” 
The current situation is “likely the tip of the iceberg,” MacGuineas adds, if policymakers don’t make changes to entitlements and “ignore the need to cut spending and increase revenues,” she adds: “Social Security and Medicare are within seven years of trust fund exhaustion, and action needs to be taken to prevent across-the-board cuts to both programs.” 
MacGuineas advocated targeting a deficit of 3% of GDP, roughly half its current level, a proposal that has gained support across the political spectrum. 
But she also added that “more importantly,” politicians should be “honest with the public about the grave dangers we face by remaining on this unsustainable path.” 
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.4%Eleanor Pringle: 2.7%Fortune: 4.2%Confirmation Bias10.4%This article: 2.8%Eleanor Pringle: 1.8%Fortune: 1.4%Anchoring Bias2.8%This article: 2.0%Eleanor Pringle: 1.4%Fortune: 3.3%Availability Heuristic2.0%This article: 5.4%Eleanor Pringle: 0.4%Fortune: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic5.4%This article: 0.0%Eleanor Pringle: 0.7%Fortune: 1.1%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleanor Pringle: 2.0%Fortune: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 18.3%Eleanor Pringle: 7.3%Fortune: 6.7%Framing Effect18.3%This article: 0.0%Eleanor Pringle: 0.2%Fortune: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.0%Eleanor Pringle: 0.7%Fortune: 0.6%Status Quo Bias2.0%This article: 0.0%Eleanor Pringle: 0.1%Fortune: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleanor Pringle: 3.5%Fortune: 3.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 14.2%Eleanor Pringle: 1.8%Fortune: 2.5%Pessimism Bias14.2%This article: 50.3%Eleanor Pringle: 5.8%Fortune: 7.0%Negativity Bias50.3%This article: 0.0%Eleanor Pringle: 1.7%Fortune: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleanor Pringle: 1.1%Fortune: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleanor Pringle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleanor Pringle: 1.1%Fortune: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleanor Pringle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleanor Pringle: 11.8%Fortune: 3.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleanor Pringle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleanor Pringle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 11.2%Eleanor Pringle: 2.4%Fortune: 1.5%Recency Bias11.2%This article: 0.0%Eleanor Pringle: 0.6%Fortune: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleanor Pringle: 0.1%Fortune: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleanor Pringle: 0.4%Fortune: 0.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleanor Pringle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.8%Eleanor Pringle: 8.0%Fortune: 4.8%Appeal to Authority13.8%This article: 0.0%Eleanor Pringle: 3.7%Fortune: 2.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 14.2%Eleanor Pringle: 1.7%Fortune: 1.3%Slippery Slope14.2%This article: 0.0%Eleanor Pringle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleanor Pringle: 2.6%Fortune: 6.0%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 5.4%Eleanor Pringle: 0.4%Fortune: 0.2%Red Herring5.4%This article: 3.7%Eleanor Pringle: 0.9%Fortune: 0.5%Bandwagon3.7%This article: 29.5%Eleanor Pringle: 2.7%Fortune: 3.1%Appeal to Emotion29.5%This article: 4.0%Eleanor Pringle: 1.1%Fortune: 1.2%Begging the Question4.0%This article: 1.8%Eleanor Pringle: 2.5%Fortune: 3.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)1.8%This article: 0.0%Eleanor Pringle: 0.2%Fortune: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleanor Pringle: 0.1%Fortune: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleanor Pringle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleanor Pringle: 0.2%Fortune: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleanor Pringle: 2.9%Fortune: 2.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleanor Pringle: 0.1%Fortune: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.7%Eleanor Pringle: 1.4%Fortune: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.7%This article: 0.0%Eleanor Pringle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.7%Eleanor Pringle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.2%Middle Ground3.7%This article: 0.0%Eleanor Pringle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleanor Pringle: 0.1%Fortune: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleanor Pringle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.4%Eleanor Pringle: 1.4%Fortune: 1.5%Unattributed Quote12.4%This article: 13.5%Eleanor Pringle: 1.5%Fortune: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection13.5%This article: 28.4%Eleanor Pringle: 5.6%Fortune: 4.4%Biased Writer Voice28.4%This article: 22.0%Eleanor Pringle: 1.9%Fortune: 1.3%Indoctrination22.0%This article: 0.0%Eleanor Pringle: 0.9%Fortune: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleanor Pringle: 0.0%Fortune: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eleanor Pringle: 0.4%Fortune: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

654 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers36%attributed speech418writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageCongressional Budget Office (CBO) • 31 words • 0.0% coverageCongressional Budget Office (CBO) • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageMaya MacGuineas • 62 words • 100.0% coverageMaya MacGuineas • 56 words • 100.0% coverageMaya MacGuineas • 24 words • 0.0% coverageMaya MacGuineas • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Maya MacGuineas

100%flagged-word coverage
168 attributed words71% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
0%45.0%90.0%Indoctrination+85.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Maya MacGuineas: 85.7%85.7%Quote-first Misdirection+52.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Maya MacGuineas: 52.4%52.4%Biased Writer Voice-44.5 ptsWriter: 44.5%Maya MacGuineas: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+32.4 ptsWriter: 4.5%Maya MacGuineas: 36.9%36.9%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.