Fact Check Analysis: US debt downgrade drives up borrowing costs




US Debt Image

Why This Article Was Flagged

A recent article published by the BBC claimed that the US government faces mounting borrowing costs following a credit downgrade, spotlighting worries about rising interest payments and long-term debt challenges. Readers have asked how this situation might impact future government spending and services. This analysis breaks down the facts, verifies claims, and explores whether the article includes bias or omits important context.

Historical Background on US Debt Ratings

The United States has long maintained high credit ratings from agencies such as Moody’s, S&P, and Fitch due to its reputation for political stability, large economy, and commitment to repaying debt. However, episodes of political gridlock, repeated debt ceiling standoffs, and growing deficits have triggered concern among rating agencies. Notably, S&P downgraded the US in 2011, and Fitch followed in 2023. Moody’s downgrade in 2025 marks a consistent trend of declining credit confidence among the major agencies.

Examining the Key Claims in the Article

Claim #1: “Moody’s downgraded the US government’s credit rating on Friday, citing the rising debt over the past decade.”

This claim is accurate. Moody’s announced a downgrade of the US government’s credit outlook due to fiscal concerns, including the growing ratio of debt to GDP and a perceived weakening in governance. In its official statement issued on May 16, 2025, Moody’s said, “The continued large fiscal deficits and declining debt affordability increasingly weaken the US’ fiscal strength.” The article correctly attributes this action to long-term debt trends rather than short-term events.
Source: Moody’s

Meta’s Responsibility

Claim #2: “Yields on 30-year Treasuries climbed to 5.04% after the downgrade, up from 4.9% just days earlier.”

This is mostly accurate. According to data from the US Department of the Treasury and Bloomberg, 30-year Treasury yields did briefly exceed 5% during intraday trading on May 19, 2025, before settling below that threshold by market close. The increase reflected investor reaction to the downgrade and broader economic uncertainties, including inflationary concerns. However, referencing only the peak rate without clarifying that it declined by end of day may give an incomplete impression.
Source: US Treasury

Fake News Stat

Claim #3: “Part of Congress voted to advance a tax bill that would add at least $3tn to US debt over the next decade.”

This claim is accurate but lacks important context. While a House committee did approve preliminary tax legislation with provisions estimated to increase the national debt by approximately $3 trillion over ten years, the bill has not passed both chambers or been signed into law. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has indicated that the largest drivers of projected deficits are existing entitlement programs and interest payments, not just new legislation.
Source: CBO

Download DBUNK Image

Claim #4: “Concerns reignited last month, after President Donald Trump’s imposition of tariffs globally…”

This claim is misleading. As of May 2025, Donald Trump has not officially assumed the presidency, despite being a major contender in the upcoming election. Therefore, he has not enacted new tariffs. If the article intended to reference proposed policies or campaign statements, it fails to make that distinction clear and instead presents the development as a current event. This misleads readers into believing tariffs are active policy when they are not.
Source: Reuters

Musk Joins Battle Against Misinformation

Final Verdict on Accuracy and Bias

The article is mostly accurate in citing the US credit downgrade, rising Treasury yields, and congressional moves that may impact the debt trajectory. However, it potentially misleads readers by failing to provide full context in at least two areas: the non-final status of the $3 trillion tax bill, and the incorrect suggestion that President Trump has already enacted new tariffs. Additionally, presenting yield spikes without noting intraday movements could exaggerate the impact. There is no overt political bias, but the omission of key context may lead to misunderstanding the timing and effect of events.

Stay Informed Image

Empower Yourself: Take Action Against Misinformation

Looking for clarity in today’s hectic news cycle? Download the DBUNK app to fact-check claims in real time, keep your community informed, and combat the spread of misinformation. You can also follow us on social media to stay ahead of misleading narratives and get the truth first.

Read the Original Article

You can view the full article at the following link:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2j03w10gno


Stay Updated with DBUNK Newsletter

Subscribe to our news letter for the latest updates.

By subscribing, you agree to our Privacy Policy and consent to receive updates.