Lenders are sending what amounts to a blunt message to commercial real estate owners: manage your loans now, or face pain later. In recent weeks, a string of banks and capital providers has accelerated demands for prepayments, tighter covenants, and voluntary defeasance on loans secured by office and retail properties, even when borrowers are current on payments. Arrangers and servicers are urging property owners to take control of risk by paying down or restructuring debt while liquidity remains available, rather than waiting for refinancing markets to seize up entirely. This is not just a credit issue, it is a market-structural moment.

After a period of rising interest rates that pushed borrowing costs sharply higher, many loans written at lower rates are now far out of step with current pricing. Borrowers who locked in financing in 2021 or 2022 at super-low spreads are sitting on obligations that can look unattractive in a 5 percent plus world. Rather than letting loans roll into maturities where refinancing costs could be far worse, lenders are encouraging voluntary workouts, defeasance, or paydowns that allow them to move bad debt off their books or reprice it at market rates now. That approach helps lenders mitigate mark-to-market risk and preserve capital ratios at a time when earnings are under pressure.

The trend is visible in the CMBS world as well. Commercial mortgage-backed securities issuance is still a fraction of historical levels, but the stock of existing CMBS loans maturing over the next few quarters is meaningful. Nearly $150 billion in CMBS debt is scheduled to mature in 2026, significantly concentrated in office and retail collateral. Many of those properties are underwater relative to valuations at origination, leaving borrowers with few easy paths to refinancing. In several recent instances, servicers have encouraged or even facilitated early paydowns and defeasance to avoid messy loan workouts that could drag down trust performance. In the absence of a deep issuance market to soak up refinancings, voluntary action looks cleaner for all parties.

This dynamic has already begun to show up in spreads and pricing. Banks are demanding larger prepayment premiums on floating-rate deals and pushing for repricing on term loans secured by regional office portfolios. On the insurance side, buyers of whole-loan portfolios are demanding sharper discounts and tighter covenants, reflecting the view that holding office debt without structural fixes is a bet with increasing downside. At the same time, core property types with stronger fundamentals, like industrial and multifamily, are seeing a different response. Lenders are less aggressive in pushing workouts, instead willing to hold or extend, banking on continued rent growth and occupancy stability.

What this means in practical terms is that owners with leveraged positions now face a pivotal choice. They can negotiate early defeasance or paydowns while they still have optionality and capital, or they can wait for scheduled maturities and potentially find themselves in distressed workouts with little leverage. For many borrowers, selling assets or recapitalizing deals before refinancing windows close is becoming a more attractive — and in some cases necessary — strategy. A number of real estate investment trusts and private equity owners have already indicated they are re-tilting portfolios away from assets with looming debt challenges or long duration financing gaps.

These financing conditions are not just cyclical, they are structural. Interest coverage ratios have tightened on office properties in particular, and while collateral performance in industrial and high-quality multifamily remains stronger, lenders’ willingness to extend credit without stronger protections has waned. The CMBS market, once a deep source of long-duration capital, remains subdued, with issuance in 2025 tracking at a small fraction of levels seen in the mid-2010s. That means borrowers cannot assume refinancing will be available on similar terms when loans come due. The current push from lenders to clean up problematic debt while markets still have some liquidity should be seen not as hostility but as an effort to stabilize balance sheets before conditions deteriorate further.

Senators Josh Hawley and Richard Blumenthal introduced the bipartisan GRID Act, which would require data centers to generate their own power separate from the main grid to prevent consumer electricity prices from rising. New facilities would have to comply immediately, while existing ones would have 10 years to transition. Operators would also need to disclose their energy usage. The push comes as data center demand is projected to double within four years, contributing to a 13% rise in household electricity costs.

The bill is part of a broader wave of state and federal efforts to shield ratepayers. New York has proposed a moratorium on large data center permits, while states including Virginia, Georgia, and California are considering special rates or requiring developers to pay for grid upgrades. Utilities warn that expanding infrastructure to support data centers could cost tens of billions, expenses typically passed on to customers.

If these policies take hold, data centers would likely accelerate investment in microgrids and virtual power plants, which combine solar, batteries, and backup generation into independent networks. These systems already account for tens of gigawatts of capacity and can often be deployed faster and cheaper than traditional power plants and grid expansions.

The shift could ripple across commercial real estate. As data centers scale independent energy systems, office, industrial, and multifamily properties may follow, adopting proven technologies to lower costs, improve resilience, and even generate new revenue from managing their own power.

Billionaire Ed Roski’s Majestic Realty Co. said it will not sell or lease a 1 million-square-foot warehouse near Dallas to the Department of Homeland Security, which had planned to convert it into the nation’s largest immigration detention facility. The Hutchins, Texas property, valued at about $80 million, could have housed up to 9,500 detainees as part of the Trump administration’s effort to expand detention capacity. Majestic said it had been approached but would not pursue an agreement.

The decision comes as DHS targets industrial warehouses nationwide that can be quickly converted into large detention centers. The agency has identified more than 20 potential sites and has already acquired several facilities in Phoenix and El Paso. The strategy has drawn opposition from local governments and community groups, with multiple city councils passing resolutions against the projects.

Majestic’s withdrawal underscores the reputational and business risks property owners face when considering detention facility deals. Owners with high-profile brands or diversified portfolios may view the revenue as outweighed by potential backlash, tenant concerns, and strained relationships with local officials, a dynamic that has already caused other landlords to back away from similar transactions.

Propmodo Daily is written and edited by Franco Faraudo with contributions from readers like you and the Propmodo team.

📧 Forward it to a friend and suggest they check it out.

🔗 Share a link to this post on social media.

🗣 Have ideas for future topics (or just want to say hello)? Share your feedback and tips at [email protected] or connect with us on X through @propmodo.

✅ Not subscribed yet? Sign up for this newsletter here.

📫 Please add our newsletter email, [email protected], to your contacts to make sure you don’t miss any updates.

Enjoy reading about trends and innovation in commercial real estate? Subscribe to Propmodo.com for unrestricted access to reliable, data-driven journalism and exclusive insights available only to subscribers.