Fact check: How do other countries' inheritance laws compare to Trump's inheritance law?

1. What proponents promise and opponents warn about — the core claims pulled apart

Advocates of the One Big Beautiful Bill claim the permanent increase in the lifetime estate and gift tax exemption to $15 million per person ($30 million per married couple) removes uncertainty and reduces tax burdens on family wealth transfers, allowing more capital to pass to heirs without federal taxation ^{[3] [4]}. The legislative package also ties exemptions to inflation indexing and preserves other business-oriented tax provisions that supporters say protect family businesses and farms from forced sales to cover tax bills ^{[1] [5]}. Critics counter that the change concentrates benefits among the wealthiest Americans and erodes a progressive revenue tool; they point to broader political goals of reducing taxes on high-net-worth households and emphasize distributional consequences, an argument the bill’s drafters acknowledge by highlighting the magnitude of the exemption increase ^{[1] [5]}. The factual kernel: the law raises the threshold substantially and makes that increase permanent, shifting the baseline for future estate tax incidence ^[3].

2. How this U.S. change stacks up against other wealthy nations — a short global snapshot

Comparative reporting before and after the U.S. reform notes that several wealthy countries have abolished or phased out inheritance taxes, while many European states retain levies with varied rates and reliefs; the U.S. post-2025 exemption places it nearer to the cohort that minimizes estate taxation but still differs in mechanism from countries that use forced heirship or social contributions ^{[6] [2]}. European practice commonly includes progressive schedules, exemptions favoring spouses and children, and relatively low revenue shares from such taxes—often because thresholds, reliefs, and exemptions limit the tax base ^[2]. The U.S. move to a $15 million floor is an outlier among countries that levy inheritance taxes at lower thresholds; however, among wealthy nations that have repealed these taxes, the U.S. shift aligns it politically and fiscally with a trend toward reducing estate taxation rather than intensifying it ^{[6] [2]}.

3. Revenue realities and fiscal significance — what the numbers mean in practice

Reporting emphasizes that inheritance and estate taxes typically raise only a small fraction of total government revenues in jurisdictions that maintain them; Europe’s experience shows modest yield even where the taxes exist because exemptions and preferential rules for close relatives shrink the taxable base ^[2]. The U.S. expansion of the exemption is therefore likely to further reduce estate tax receipts as fewer estates meet the higher threshold, limiting revenue impact and complicating fiscal tradeoffs for policymakers seeking redistributive tools ^{[3] [5]}. Advocates argue the lost revenue is offset by economic benefits to family businesses and savings in administrative complexity; opponents highlight long-term distributional effects and the erosion of a progressive tax instrument, underlining that the policy change affects who pays rather than whether an estate tax exists at all ^{[3] [4]}.

4. Who gains legally and practically — spouses, descendants, and planners

Across jurisdictions, spouses and direct descendants receive preferential treatment through higher exemptions, transfer allowances, or zero-rates—European systems commonly embed these features to preserve household continuity ^[2]. The U.S. reform amplifies this effect by raising thresholds so high that many intergenerational transfers among upper-middle and wealthy households occur tax-free, expanding planning options and retaining family capital intact across generations ^{[3] [4]}. Practically, wealth advisers and estates lawyers see the change as prompting review and reworking of trusts, gifting strategies, and multigenerational wealth plans; analysts note that the permanent nature and indexing will alter long-term estate planning calculus and may widen disparities in estate transfer outcomes between wealthy families and others ^{[5] [3]}.

5. Political framing and international posture — motives and possible agendas

Advocates frame the change as pro-growth, stabilizing, and protective of family enterprises, emphasizing certainty and relief from liquidity pressures that force asset sales ^{[1] [4]}. Opponents frame it as a windfall for the wealthiest and a retreat from progressive taxation, suggesting political motives to shift tax burdens away from capital and inheritance—an agenda reflected in the broader package’s business-friendly provisions ^{[5] [1]}. Internationally, the U.S. posture sits between countries that have kept estate taxes as redistributive tools and those that have repealed them; the accompanying proposal to address “unfair” foreign taxes signals a willingness to shape cross-border tax dynamics, potentially influencing how other jurisdictions design inheritance-related levies that affect U.S. taxpayers ^{[7] [3]}.

6. Bottom line: what the comparison reveals and what’s left open

The factual comparison shows the 2025 U.S. reform makes the U.S. more generous than many European systems in practical exemption terms while aligning it with a minority of wealthy nations that have minimized or abolished inheritance taxation ^{[6] [2]}. Important open questions remain about long-term revenue effects, distributional shifts, and how other countries will respond or adjust treaty and domestic rules affecting cross-border estates; these outcomes will depend on future legislatures, administrative guidance, and international tax negotiations rather than the statutory change alone ^{[3] [7]}. The law’s permanence and indexing create new baselines for comparison, shifting the debate from temporary relief to structural realignment of how inheritance is taxed in a global context ^{[3] [5]}.