The fiscal problem
The fiscal problem is a relationship between a stock and the economy that supports it. When federal debt grows faster than nominal gross domestic product, debt-to-GDP rises. When nominal GDP grows faster for long enough, that ratio can decline even while the dollar amount of debt continues to increase.
Debt held by the public as a share of GDP in CBO’s projections for 2026 and 2036. This is a baseline projection, not today’s measured debt ratio. [1]
The scenarios below start at a deliberately normalized 100% of GDP and use debt held by the public, consistent with the CBO comparison. Gross federal debt also includes intragovernmental holdings; the two measures are not interchangeable. No Fund assets are subtracted from the chart’s debt numerator. [2]
At 2% annual growth, nominal debt is about 81% larger after 30 years. In the central scenario, GDP grows even faster, so the burden relative to economic output falls.
Core assumptions
Every number in this table is an illustrative modeling assumption or a calculation from those assumptions. None is an official revenue estimate, return promise or federal growth target.
| Lever | Illustrative scenario |
|---|---|
| Real GDP growth | 2.5%–3.5% annually |
| Central real-growth case | 3.0% annually |
| Inflation scenario | 4.0% annually |
| Nominal GDP growth | 6.60%–7.64% (approximately 6.6%–7.6%) |
| Central nominal-growth case | 7.12% (approximately 7.1%) |
| Nominal debt growth target | 2.0% annually, including interest and net financing needs |
| Initial annual Fund contributions | $100B–$200B; central assumption $150B |
| Illustrative long-run Fund return | 6%–8% nominal annually; uncertain, not guaranteed |
| Fiscal objective | Move toward primary balance; achieve any further adjustment needed to keep debt growth below GDP growth |
Nominal growth includes compounding
- 2.5% real + 4% inflation → 6.60% nominal growth.
- 3.0% real + 4% inflation → 7.12%, approximately 7.1%.
- 3.5% real + 4% inflation → 7.64%, approximately 7.6%.
For this GDP identity, “inflation” means GDP-price inflation. The Federal Reserve targets PCE inflation, a different price index. The scenario simplifies by assuming both average 4%; changing the PCE objective would not mechanically deliver a 4% GDP deflator.
Debt-to-GDP scenario
Illustrative debt-to-GDP scenario — not a forecast. The starting ratio is 100%. Real growth is 2.5%, 3.0% or 3.5%; the initial inflation setting is 4%, and nominal debt growth is 2%.
Debt held by the public / GDP (%) · years after the normalized starting point
Central case at year 30: 23.0% of GDP. This result requires debt growth to remain below nominal GDP growth.
| Year | 2.5% real | 3.0% real | 3.5% real |
|---|---|---|---|
| Start | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| 10 | 64.3% | 61.3% | 58.4% |
| 20 | 41.4% | 37.5% | 34.1% |
| 30 | 26.6% | 23.0% | 19.9% |
Controls change this chart and its table only. The article and central summary retain the original 4% inflation / 2% debt-growth assumptions. With JavaScript disabled, the table shows those original assumptions.
The chart is a conditional identity, not a model of how to deliver its inputs. It does not estimate Treasury yields, tax responses, recessions, labor-market changes or resource revenue. Moving the debt-growth control upward shows how quickly additional borrowing can offset the arithmetic benefit.
AI & productivity
The framework assumes AI, automation, robotics, advanced computing and capital investment raise real output per worker enough to support 2.5%–3.5% sustained real GDP growth. That is materially stronger than CBO’s February 2026 projection of average real growth of 1.8% over 2027–2036. It is an ambitious scenario, not an established effect of AI. [1]
Across the economy
Potential applications include manufacturing quality control; healthcare administration and clinical support; logistics routing; mining and energy operations; engineering design; software development; and scientific research. Investment in reliable infrastructure and changes in how organizations work would determine whether useful tools become economy-wide productivity.
Across government
Federal administration, defense logistics, procurement, fraud detection, tax administration and benefits processing could use AI to reduce delays and errors. Human oversight, appeal rights, privacy and outcome measurement remain essential. Hypothetical efficiency gains are not counted here as verified budget savings.
More output does not guarantee broadly shared prosperity
Some jobs could be displaced even while aggregate output rises. Workforce transition, retraining, new occupations and entrepreneurship would need to accompany adoption. Shorter average workweeks or changes in labor-force participation could absorb some productivity gains, but also change total output and revenue.
If income shifts from labor toward capital, the composition of the tax base changes. Wages, payroll receipts, business profits and ownership of AI assets may move differently. The scenario therefore needs distributional analysis, not just a higher GDP headline.
Inflation & interest
The Federal Reserve Act sets monetary-policy objectives of maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates. The 2% inflation objective is an FOMC policy framework, measured using the PCE price index; that number is not written into Section 2A of the statute. The FOMC reaffirmed its 2% objective in January 2026. [3] [4]
This page tests 4% long-run inflation, a departure from that framework. It does not presume the Federal Reserve will adopt it or that Congress and Treasury can set monetary policy to meet a debt target.
Potential effects in the model
- Faster nominal GDP growth.
- A lower real burden of legacy fixed-rate nominal debt.
- A larger nominal tax base.
- Potentially higher nominal resource receipts, depending on prices, exchange rates and contracts.
Costs and countereffects
- Higher nominal Treasury yields and refinancing costs.
- Faster erosion of purchasing power, particularly when incomes lag.
- Repricing of wages, contracts and credit.
- Higher inflation-indexed spending and TIPS principal.
- Weaker confidence if monetary policy appears subordinated to fiscal financing.
Expected inflation is likely to be reflected in new borrowing costs. The legacy-debt benefit fades as securities mature, and not all debt is fixed-rate or unindexed. At a constant 4%, the price level roughly doubles in 18 years; that arithmetic is not a forecast of household incomes.
Inflation is not free debt reduction.
National Resource Fund
A proposed United States National Resource Fund would convert a portion of finite public natural-resource wealth into permanent financial assets. This is a new institutional concept in the framework, not a claim that such a fund already operates under these rules.
Approximately the surface area managed by BLM. [5]
Approximately the mineral estate BLM administers. Surface and subsurface areas overlap; they should not be added together. [5]
Candidate resource categories include gold, silver, copper, lithium, uranium, rare earths and other critical minerals, as well as oil, natural gas and geothermal resources. Acreage alone says nothing about ore grade, accessibility, costs, legal availability or economic recovery. USGS distinguishes resources from reserves; this page assigns no total dollar value to minerals beneath federal lands. [6]
Revenue mechanisms, subject to legal authority
Royalties, lease payments and competitive auctions could supply revenue. A legislated framework could also consider production-sharing agreements, carried interests, dividends or other federal resource-development interests. These arrangements have different risks: equity or carried interests can impose future funding obligations and give government a conflicted role as both regulator and investor.
Federal hardrock claims under the General Mining Act differ from federal oil and gas leasing. Locatable hardrock minerals generally do not generate a federal production royalty under that claim system. A new royalty or economic-interest structure for those claims would require legislation; it cannot simply be assumed to exist. Acquired-land and other leasing arrangements need separate treatment. [7] [12]
Interior reported $14.61B in FY2025 disbursements across federal and tribal onshore lands and federal offshore areas, including $5.01B to Treasury. The proposed $150B annual contribution is about ten times that entire disbursement total, not an estimate supported by current receipts. [8]
State, tribal and dedicated-program shares are not a free federal surplus. Tribal mineral revenues are not Fund seed capital. Project costs, existing allocations, environmental obligations and displaced budget revenue must be accounted for before net contributions can be established.
Fund compounding
The proposed rule is to save and invest eligible net resource receipts rather than simply spend them through the ordinary budget. Over decades, investment income could become more important than new royalties, provided contributions are feasible, returns materialize and withdrawals remain controlled.
$10T fund × 6% annual nominal return.
$20T fund × 6% annual nominal return.
These are total-return illustrations, not guaranteed cash dividends or safe spending amounts. Appreciation may be unrealized, investment losses occur, and fees, inflation and withdrawals reduce accumulation. A 6% nominal return with 4% inflation is about 1.92% real, before fees.
| Years | 6% return | 7% return | 8% return |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | $1.98T | $2.07T | $2.17T |
| 20 | $5.52T | $6.15T | $6.86T |
| 30 | $11.86T | $14.17T | $16.99T |
Compound first; draw income sustainably later
The proposed long-term payoff is a Fund large enough to support limited budget withdrawals while protecting its real purchasing power. A withdrawal lowers borrowing only if it replaces borrowing that would otherwise occur. Spending it on additional commitments would not deliver that reduction.
The table above models the accumulation phase only. It does not include withdrawals or their effect on future compounding. A later payout phase would require separate return, inflation, risk and spending rules; the same return cannot be both reinvested and spent.
Returns are shown before fees, with all gains reinvested; the table does not establish that the contributions can be raised. Borrowing to capitalize the Fund creates a matching liability. Redirecting revenues that currently finance the budget can increase borrowing unless offset elsewhere. Neither approach is a free improvement in national net worth.
Open-market investments
The framework does not depend solely on extraction from U.S. public lands. The Fund could allocate a limited portion of a diversified sovereign portfolio to resource-related assets acquired on the open market, at market prices and under published investment rules.
Businesses and financial claims
- Publicly traded mining companies and energy producers.
- Mineral royalty companies, including royalty and streaming businesses.
- Resource-focused funds and resource-linked securities.
- Timber and forestry assets.
Productive infrastructure
- Resource transport, storage and other infrastructure.
- Mineral-processing businesses and critical-mineral infrastructure.
- Recycling and materials-recovery companies.
- Strategic physical commodity reserves where appropriate, with a separately defined public-purpose mandate.
Resource exposure would sit inside a broader, professionally managed portfolio with transparent concentration limits, liquidity requirements, independent custody, audited accounts and controls on leverage and conflicts of interest.
Domestic resources could provide initial seed capital; subsequent investments could acquire productive resource assets globally without continually expanding extraction from U.S. public lands. Purchasing a security does not automatically expand productive capacity, secure delivery of a mineral or eliminate environmental impacts abroad.
Managers would need to assess valuation, currency, sanctions, host-country law, expropriation, labor conditions and environmental liabilities. A nationally owned portfolio is still exposed to market losses. Investment decisions should be insulated from favored-company financing and electoral cycles.
Environmental protection
The proposal is not “mine everything.” Some places should remain unavailable because of ecological, cultural, legal or economic constraints.
Before major extraction, each operator would need a funded restoration and reclamation plan, backed by full financial assurance based on credible third-party costs. BLM already requires reclamation guarantees for covered mining operations. This model builds on that obligation; it does not imply reclamation requirements are new. GAO’s past findings illustrate why sufficiency and monitoring matter. [9] [10]
Protect land and living systems
- Preserve topsoil and stabilize disturbed ground.
- Restore native vegetation and wildlife habitat.
- Reforest suitable sites and restore wetlands.
- Control erosion and remove unnecessary industrial infrastructure.
Protect water through closure
- Protect watersheds and surface water.
- Monitor groundwater and manage contamination.
- Contain tailings with independently reviewed safeguards.
- Finance post-closure monitoring and long-lived treatment obligations.
Assurance would be secured before disturbance, updated as costs change and released only against verified performance. A reserve would not excuse an operator’s liability. Some impacts are irreversible; a bond, replanting program or offset elsewhere cannot make every project acceptable. Full lifecycle emissions and cumulative ecosystem effects also belong in project evaluation.
Replant what is disturbed
Replant What Is Disturbed
Revegetation would use locally appropriate native trees, grasses and shrubs, pollinator habitat, riparian vegetation and wetland species. Planting choices must fit soil, water availability, climate and the original ecosystem; naturally open grasslands are not failed forests.
Success would be judged by ecosystem function: water quality, soil stability, native-species survival, habitat connectivity and recovery over time. A tree count alone cannot show whether a watershed or wetland works.
This is an ecological ambition to be measured, not an automatic claim of net benefit. Carefully selected, fully costed projects could also finance abandoned-mine cleanup, watershed restoration, wildfire resilience, habitat corridors, forest recovery, wetland restoration and contaminated-land remediation.
Funding legacy damage elsewhere would supplement, not replace, restoration at the project site. Baselines, independent monitoring and long-term maintenance would be needed before claiming additional ecological gains.
Restoration Reserve
A proposed U.S. Natural Capital Restoration Reserve would have a distinct purpose, budget and accounting framework.
National Resource Fund
Builds financial assets through long-term investment. Its performance would be assessed against a transparent portfolio mandate and risk budget.
Natural Capital Restoration Reserve
Protects and restores environmental assets. Its performance would be assessed through ecological outcomes and funded long-term obligations.
Potential funding includes dedicated portions of royalties and lease payments, restoration assessments, penalties where legally available, and forfeited environmental bonds applied to the liabilities they secure. Ordinary refundable bonds are not spendable investment revenue and must remain available for their specific reclamation obligations.
A legislated reserve could address orphaned legacy sites where the original company no longer exists, while preserving recovery from responsible parties where possible. Contributions to the financial Fund and the Restoration Reserve must be allocated separately; the same dollar cannot be counted twice.
Strategic reserves
Investment returns and national security are different objectives. Critical minerals, rare earth elements, uranium, copper and other defense- or infrastructure-critical materials may warrant physical reserves following a material-specific assessment of supply disruption and substitutability.
Strategic stockpiles serve resilience and supply security, not short-term financial returns. They require storage, quality control, rotation where needed, release rules and replenishment funding. Ownership of a mining share does not guarantee access to its output in a crisis.
The framework would keep stockpile spending and performance separate from the Fund’s commercial investment mandate, with Congress and responsible national-security agencies defining authorities and requirements.
AI & resource development
A proposed performance principle, not proof that technology makes extraction harmless.
AI could assist geological modeling, satellite analysis, remote sensing and ore-body targeting before development. Autonomous drilling, mine planning and predictive maintenance could improve operating precision. Water management, tailings monitoring, methane detection and environmental monitoring could identify problems earlier.
Reclamation planning and reforestation monitoring could help operators track recovery after closure. Each use would need validation against measured cost, safety and environmental outcomes. Faulty sensors, incomplete geological data, model error and rebound effects can offset benefits. Technology does not eliminate environmental risk or replace independent oversight and tribal consultation.
Fiscal discipline
Resource receipts and a larger nominal economy cannot solve the fiscal problem if new borrowing consumes their benefits. Nominal GDP growth must remain above nominal federal debt growth. Keeping expenditure growth below GDP growth, limiting structural deficits and moving toward primary balance are central to the framework.
Primary balance is a starting point, not the 2% debt-growth guarantee
A primary balance means revenue covers noninterest spending. Interest still has to be financed. In a simplified debt identity, annual debt growth equals the effective interest rate minus the primary surplus as a share of starting debt, plus other net financing adjustments.
For example, with a 5% effective interest rate and no other financing adjustments, holding debt growth to 2% would require a primary surplus equal to roughly 3% of starting debt. This is an arithmetic illustration, not an interest-rate forecast or a proposed budget. Fund capitalization could add to the required adjustment.
No particular tax hike or spending cut is prescribed here. A credible implementation would need a scored budget specifying how revenue, noninterest spending, interest and net asset purchases jointly achieve the assumed debt path.
Separate responsibilities
The Federal Reserve should not be tasked with paying down federal debt. The framework separates monetary policy, fiscal choices, asset management and environmental obligations.
| Institution | Responsibility |
|---|---|
| Federal Reserve | Independent monetary policy under its employment, price-stability and long-term-rate mandate; any inflation-framework review is an FOMC matter. |
| Congress and Treasury | Congress legislates fiscal policy and appropriations; Treasury implements financing and debt management within legal authority. |
| Interior / BLM / USGS | Resource and geological assessment, land-management and development frameworks within distinct agency roles. USGS supplies science rather than acting as the investment manager. |
| National Resource Fund (proposed) | Professional long-term financial asset accumulation under legislated governance and public reporting. |
| Natural Capital Restoration Reserve (proposed) | Funded environmental restoration and monitoring, separate from commercial return targets. |
| Private sector | Innovation, investment, AI deployment, extraction, processing and productivity gains, subject to law and oversight. |
The five engines
Productivity
AI → higher output per worker → illustrative 2.5%–3.5% real GDP growth.
Nominal growth
Real growth + 4% inflation → approximately 6.6%–7.6% nominal GDP growth.
Resource conversion
Eligible federal resources → net royalties or economic interests → financial assets.
Global compounding
Diversified investments → dividends and appreciation → a potentially larger Fund.
Natural-capital restoration
Responsible development → funded restoration, replanting and ecological recovery.
Financial assets and restored natural capital should be reported separately. Ecosystems are not liquid securities, and neither is automatically available to service debt.
What has to go right
These dependencies determine whether the framework could work outside a spreadsheet. They are not minor qualifications to an otherwise guaranteed outcome.
Economic and fiscal risks
- AI must deliver genuine productivity gains; employment displacement and unequal gains must be manageable.
- 4% inflation must not destabilize expectations or undermine monetary credibility.
- Higher Treasury rates must not erase the fiscal benefit.
- Federal spending must grow more slowly than nominal GDP over time, with revenue sufficient to meet the debt constraint.
- Recessions, emergencies and demographic pressures can interrupt the assumed path.
Resource and investment risks
- Projects must remain viable after restoration, infrastructure and operating costs.
- Environmental law, tribal sovereignty, treaty rights and consultation obligations must be respected.
- Commodity prices are volatile; receipts may fall when budgets are under pressure.
- Open-market investments can lose value; global assets introduce currency and geopolitical risk.
- Resource concentration can expose both revenue and investments to the same downturn.
Governance is a condition of the model
Resource revenues must actually be saved and invested. Congress would need to preserve the Fund’s rules across political cycles. Independent management, clear benchmarks, external audits, transparent fees, procurement safeguards and limits on politically directed investing would be necessary for credible public stewardship. No law can remove all future political risk.
What would have to change
The framework would require legislation, institutional design and agency implementation. It cannot all be accomplished by executive order.
| Change | Principal responsibility |
|---|---|
| Hardrock royalty and economic-interest reform | Congress would establish new authority for the claim system; Interior and relevant land agencies would implement it. |
| National Resource Fund and Restoration Reserve legislation | Congress would define purposes, funding, ownership, withdrawal rules, audits and oversight. |
| Comprehensive federal mineral inventory | USGS, BLM and other land agencies would improve geological and ownership information, subject to appropriations and access constraints. |
| Resource-revenue dedication and sovereign-fund governance | Congress and Treasury would address existing recipients, budget offsets, professional management and transparent risk limits. |
| Federal fiscal rules | Congress would define credible budget targets, accounting, enforcement and emergency provisions. |
| AI productivity, infrastructure and workforce transition | Congress, executive agencies, states, education providers and the private sector would share implementation. |
| Federal AI modernization | Agencies would deploy validated systems within privacy, procurement, security and due-process requirements. |
| Possible inflation-framework change | The FOMC would assess a framework change within its statutory mandate; changing the mandate itself requires Congress. |
| Permitting improvements | Congress and permitting agencies would improve coordination and capacity consistently with environmental law and tribal obligations. |
Central scenario
Central illustrative scenario
- Real GDP growth
- 3.0%
- Inflation scenario
- 4.0%
- Nominal GDP growth
- 7.12% ≈ 7.1%
- Nominal debt growth
- 2.0%
- Initial annual Fund contribution
- $150B
- Nominal Fund return
- 6%–8%
Illustrative debt-to-GDP path
Fiscal objective: move toward primary balance and achieve any additional surplus or financing adjustment necessary for the debt-growth constraint.
This is a mathematical scenario, not a forecast.
The objective
The objective is not necessarily zero federal debt. It is a growing real economy, declining debt-to-GDP, a growing national financial asset base, protected and restored natural capital, greater strategic-resource security, and more national assets relative to national liabilities.
Instead of asking only, “How can the United States find enough money to pay off the debt?” the framework asks:
How can the United States make its productive economy, financial assets, and natural capital compound faster than its liabilities?
The equations clarify the conditions. They do not establish that the growth, fiscal adjustment, investable revenue or ecological outcomes are achievable. Those are the questions a serious policy evaluation would have to answer.
Sources and Methodology
Edition: September 27, 2026. Federal data and institutional facts are identified in the text. The CBO comparison uses the dated February 2026 baseline; subsequent updates are linked separately. Older GAO reports provide historical oversight context, not current quantities. Agency citations support those facts, not endorsement of this framework.
Calculation rules
- Debt ratios use unrounded annual growth inputs and a normalized 100% starting ratio; displayed values round to one decimal. There is no probability distribution or forecast confidence band.
- The inflation input is treated as GDP-deflator inflation, assumed equal to PCE inflation solely for illustration.
- Fund accumulation uses F(t) = C × ((1 + r)t − 1) / r, where C is the end-of-year nominal contribution, r is the constant nominal return and the starting balance is zero. With a zero return, F(t) = C × t.
- Fund calculations assume reinvestment, no withdrawals and no fees. The constant contribution examples extend the initial $150B assumption throughout the stated horizon; contributions are not inflation-indexed.
- The debt and Fund illustrations are separate accounting exercises. Fund balances do not reduce the chart’s debt, and investment returns are not counted simultaneously as spending and reinvestment.
- Resource receipts must be net of relevant allocations and costs. Neither unextracted minerals nor environmental bonds are treated as immediately investable cash.
A full model would need an integrated fiscal budget, interest-rate and refinancing paths, revenue estimates, project-level environmental and tribal assessments, labor-market distribution, investment risk, fees and withdrawal rules. This page does not supply that feasibility study.
- CBO · The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2026 to 2036February 2026 baseline: debt held by the public, deficits and real growth. These are official projections, not realized outcomes.
- Treasury · Debt to the PennyDefines total debt as debt held by the public plus intragovernmental holdings. No live debt-counter value is used here.
- Federal Reserve Act · Section 2AStatutory monetary-policy objectives; the statute does not specify a numeric 2% target.
- FOMC · Statement on Longer-Run Goals and Monetary Policy StrategyReaffirmed January 27, 2026; 2% longer-run inflation objective measured with the PCE price index.
- BLM · How We ManageApproximately 245 million surface acres and 700 million mineral-estate acres; acreage is not an estimate of recoverable wealth.
- USGS · Mineral Commodity Summaries 2026Mineral production, reserves and resources; Appendix C distinguishes resources from economically recoverable reserves.
- GAO · Mining Operations OversightExplains federal mining systems and the absence of federal royalties for locatable minerals under the General Mining Act.
- Interior / ONRR · FY2025 revenue disbursementsNovember 24, 2025: $14.61B disbursed from federal and tribal onshore and federal offshore production, including $5.01B to Treasury.
- BLM · Mining and Minerals: BondingExisting financial guarantees for reclamation; the stronger reserve and restoration framework here is a proposal.
- GAO · Hardrock Mining: Financial Assurances2019 oversight findings illustrate the importance of adequate assurance and monitoring, not a current estimate of unfunded liabilities.
- CBO · Current outlook and subsequent updatesTracks later updates, including the August 20, 2026 tariff estimate. The February baseline figures above are explicitly dated and do not incorporate every subsequent policy change.
- BLM · About Oil and GasFederal onshore oil and gas leasing authority differs from the hardrock claim system.
Review assumptions · Return to the interactive chart · DutyStation.ai home