Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How do the national debt levels during the Biden and Trump presidencies compare to historical trends?
Executive summary
Analyses from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) and media outlets show that the dollar increase in public debt during the Trump and Biden presidencies has been large and, by several common measures, comparable in scale — with CRFB counting roughly $8.4 trillion of new ten‑year borrowing tied to Trump’s term versus $4.3 trillion tied to Biden’s first three-plus years and measuring debt‑held‑by‑the‑public growth of about $6.0 trillion under Trump and about $6.9 trillion under Biden through mid‑2024 [1] [2] [3]. Reporting also highlights disagreement about methodology and attribution — House Budget Committee and others dispute some CRFB choices — and observers note that mandatory program trends and interest costs shape long‑run debt independently of any single president [4] [5].
1. What the headline numbers say: dollar increases and CRFB’s breakdown
CRFB’s public summaries and papers are the most‑cited sources in this set: they estimate former President Trump approved roughly $8.4 trillion of new ten‑year borrowing associated with his policies and President Biden approved about $4.3 trillion in his first three-plus years; CRFB also reports debt held by the public net of cash balances rose about $6.0 trillion during Trump’s full term and about $6.9 trillion during Biden’s three years and five months [1] [2] [3]. Media outlets such as Axios and The Hill relay those CRFB tallies and emphasize a roughly 2:1 ratio on approved borrowing when pandemic relief is included [6] [3].
2. Different measures, different messages: approved borrowing vs. debt actually outstanding
Analysts distinguish “approved ten‑year borrowing” (the fiscal effect of enacted policy over a decade) from year‑to‑year changes in debt outstanding. CRFB presents both types: its “approved borrowing” totals (e.g., $8.4T vs. $4.3T) reflect projected ten‑year costs of laws and executive actions, while the reported growth in debt held by the public ($6.0T under Trump; $6.9T under Biden to mid‑2024) is an accounting of what actually accumulated in office to that point [1] [2]. Journalists and fact‑checkers caution that these measures can yield different impressions and that timing, one‑time events, and how COVID relief is counted materially affect comparisons [3] [7].
3. Where the disputes lie: methodology, one‑offs, and partisan critiques
The House Budget Committee publicly challenged CRFB’s methodology, accusing it of inconsistently counting or excluding certain policy actions (for example, counting some Trump‑era rules that were delayed or repealed while excluding some Biden actions) and arguing CRFB underestimates Biden’s contributions and overstates Trump’s [4]. CRFB itself documents what it includes (legislation, executive actions, COVID packages) and separates pandemic‑related from non‑pandemic measures; media writeups note that excluding COVID relief narrows the gap but still shows Trump adding more in CRFB’s accounting [2] [3].
4. The broader historical frame: long‑running drivers beyond any one president
Several fact‑check and news pieces underline that much of the long‑term debt trajectory predates either president: mandatory spending (Social Security, Medicare) and demographic shifts began pushing debt up earlier, and interest costs have surged, increasing the budget’s sensitivity to past borrowing [5] [4]. Politics also matters: many large drivers are multi‑decade, bipartisan decisions rather than single‑term choices [5].
5. Recent totals and the political spin cycle
By late 2024 and into 2025, reporting highlighted record gross national debt levels (e.g., surpassing $38 trillion) and political claims that each administration either worsened or fixed the problem — including White House statements attributing deficit reductions to administration policy and congressional communications making counterclaims [8] [9]. These are advocacy‑tinged claims; independent analyses such as CRFB’s and fact‑checks point to complex causation and methodological choices that shape headline figures [1] [4] [7].
6. What to watch next: expirations, interest, and bipartisan choices
Observers note upcoming policy junctures that will materially influence debt trends: scheduled expirations of tax provisions, decisions about pandemic‑era spending rules, interest cost trajectories, and any major bipartisan packages [3] [2]. Analysts warn fiscal outcomes will depend less on single presidents than on Congress’s choices, the economy, and demographic pressures that drive mandatory spending [5].
Limitations and final note: available sources in this packet rely heavily on CRFB’s methodology and on contemporaneous press coverage; they document critics (House Budget Committee, other outlets) but do not supply a single authoritative, uncontested alternative accounting in these documents. Where sources disagree, I’ve noted the dispute and cited the relevant critiques [1] [4] [3] [5].