50-year mortgages? NFL kickoff rules? Here’s where some of Trump’s latest jaw-dropping musings stand

President Trump’s Bold Proposals: From Mainstream to Moonshots

President Donald Trump has developed a reputation for floating unconventional ideas that sometimes transform from fringe concepts to administration policy. While some of his once-outlandish proposals have become normalized—such as referring to the Defense Department as the “Department of War,” imposing tariffs reminiscent of the Gilded Age, and pardoning January 6 Capitol rioters—many others remain in various stages of development or have quietly disappeared.

The administration’s latest high-profile proposal involves extending mortgage terms to 50 years, a significant leap from the traditional 30-year model. Trump himself promoted the concept on social media with images comparing his proposal to Franklin Roosevelt’s establishment of 30-year mortgages. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that economic advisors are “seriously looking into” implementation options.

Bill Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, enthusiastically endorsed the idea as “a complete game changer” for housing affordability. However, economists—including some Republicans—have criticized the plan, noting that while monthly payments would decrease, homeowners would build equity at a significantly slower pace. When faced with pushback, Trump downplayed his suggestion, telling Fox News simply, “All it means is you pay less per month.”

Another controversial economic proposal involves distributing tariff revenue directly to Americans. Trump suggested online that his administration’s import taxes could fund “a dividend of at least $2000 a person (not including high income people!).” Economic experts have questioned the feasibility of this plan, pointing out that American consumers already bear the cost of tariffs through higher prices.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has since tempered expectations, indicating that direct payments might not materialize. Despite collecting over $225 billion in tariff revenue, this sum falls short of funding $2,000 checks for all eligible Americans. Nevertheless, the White House maintains it is “committed to making” these payments a reality.

Other proposals remain in limbo, like Trump’s suggestion to provide $10,000 bonuses to air traffic controllers who worked without pay during government shutdowns. When pressed on funding mechanisms, the president responded, “I don’t know,” adding, “I always get the money from someplace, regardless. It doesn’t matter.”

Some ideas have simply faded away. In September, Trump issued a statement “directing the enforcement of death penalty laws in the District of Columbia,” despite the fact that the D.C. City Council repealed capital punishment in 1981, and voters rejected its reinstatement in a 1992 referendum. Additionally, most murders in Washington don’t qualify as federal crimes, making implementation practically impossible.

The president’s plan for a U.S. sovereign wealth fund has evolved into a different approach. Instead of creating a formal investment pool—traditionally funded by budget surpluses that the deficit-running U.S. lacks—the administration has directed government investment into strategic companies like U.S. Steel, Intel, and rare earth mineral producers, citing national security concerns.

Trump’s interests extend beyond economic and governance issues to sports and entertainment. He has repeatedly criticized the NFL’s new dynamic kickoff rule, calling it “demeaning” and harmful to “the pageantry” of football. However, he has acknowledged the league will likely maintain the safety-focused change despite his objections.

The president has also suggested naming the Washington Commanders’ new stadium after himself, a proposal the team has not endorsed. Trump continues to criticize the team’s current name, advocating for a return to “Redskins” despite widespread recognition of that name as offensive to Native Americans. He previously threatened to block stadium construction unless the original name was restored.

More controversial proposals have quietly disappeared from the agenda. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller stated in May that the administration was “actively looking at” suspending habeas corpus to expedite deportations. When questioned about this in October, Trump appeared unfamiliar with the concept, asking, “Suspending who?” before deferring to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who denied knowledge of such discussions.

Similarly, Trump’s September claim that “We’re trying to get it back” regarding Afghanistan’s Bagram Airfield—once the largest U.S. military base in the country—has gained little traction. The Taliban rejected the suggestion, recommending instead that the U.S. adopt a policy of “realism and rationality.”

As the administration continues to generate headline-grabbing proposals, observers note a pattern: bold announcements followed by varying degrees of implementation, modification, or quiet abandonment when faced with practical or political obstacles.