Elizabeth Warren says President Donald Trump backed an approach she wants to use to eliminate the U.S. debt limit

Sen. Elizabeth Warren is pushing an approach that would effectively remove the U.S. debt limit, according to a report published Monday, and she credits President Donald Trump with advancing the idea in prior discussion. The proposal would target what supporters describe as a recurring trigger that forces Congress to revisit federal borrowing authority and spending priorities through debt-limit legislation.

Under current federal law, Treasury is limited in the amount it can borrow to meet obligations, requiring Congress to raise or otherwise alter the limit when it is reached. The report frames Warren’s effort around the practical outcome of those standoffs, saying the debt limit is one of the only mechanisms that compels lawmakers to debate federal spending and debt when borrowing authority runs out.

The report also says the national debt stands at about $39.8 trillion, and it positions Warren’s push as a response to the pattern of repeated debt-limit negotiations. Warren’s argument, as characterized in the report, is that eliminating the limit would reduce the frequency of high-stakes bargaining over budget and borrowing, while shifting the focus to regular budgeting and appropriations.

Warren is not seeking new appropriations in the description of the idea, but rather a structural change to the rule governing federal borrowing. The report indicates she believes the concept is consistent with something she attributes to President Donald Trump, presenting Trump’s prior comments or approach as aligning with her view that the debt limit itself is an outdated constraint on government financing.

The debt limit has long been used as a legislative lever: Treasury must maintain sufficient borrowing capacity to pay obligations already incurred, including payments associated with programs authorized by Congress. When the limit is reached, Congress typically considers legislation to raise, suspend, or otherwise adjust it, and the resulting debate can become a forum for disagreements over spending levels, budget enforcement, and fiscal priorities.

Any effort to remove or substantially alter the debt limit would likely require congressional action and could involve changes to the underlying statute that sets the borrowing ceiling. Because the report describes the proposal in terms of eliminating the limit rather than raising it, the legislative path would matter for implementation and for how Treasury would manage borrowing authority going forward.

Warren’s stance would also affect how and when Congress engages with federal fiscal planning, since the debt-limit process is often triggered by Treasury reaching statutory capacity rather than by the regular appropriations cycle. The practical impact would depend on the final legislative language and any transition rules, including how Treasury would calculate borrowing capacity and how Congress would oversee fiscal policy after the debt limit is removed.