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 did COVID-19 relief and economic measures under Donald J. Trump and Joe Biden affect federal debt in 2020–2024?
Executive Summary
The net effect of COVID‑19 relief and associated economic measures under Presidents Donald J. Trump and Joe Biden was a sharp, concentrated rise in federal borrowing across 2020–2024, with analysts attributing roughly $12–13 trillion of new ten‑year borrowing to actions spanning late Trump administration pandemic bills through Biden’s American Rescue Plan and subsequent legislation, though methodologies and totals differ by source [1] [2]. Observers disagree sharply on attribution between legislative, bipartisan, and executive actions and on whether later interest‑rate driven cost increases should be tallied as administration policy effects; this produces competing tallies ranging from CRFB’s $8.4T (Trump) and $4.3T (Biden) splits to a House Budget Committee rebuttal claiming far larger Biden‑era impacts when counting interest and executive actions [2] [3].
1. Why the spike was massive and concentrated — pandemic relief drove most new borrowing
Federal borrowing surged because Congress and the White House enacted large emergency packages in 2020 and 2021 to blunt the pandemic’s economic shock, with the CARES Act and related 2020 measures underpinning a large share of Trump‑era borrowing and the American Rescue Plan and bipartisan infrastructure and pandemic measures driving large portions of Biden‑era borrowing. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget quantified $8.4 trillion of new ten‑year borrowing approved under Trump’s 2017–2020 window and $4.3 trillion under Biden through mid‑2024, and it highlights that timing differed: Trump’s pandemic borrowing was concentrated in 2020 while Biden’s was more spread across 2021–2024 [2] [1]. This framing emphasizes that policy choices for emergency relief were the proximate fiscal driver of deficits over these years.
2. Why tallies differ — counting rules, interest, and executive actions change the story
Analysts reach divergent totals because they apply different accounting rules: some count only enacted legislative new borrowing over a ten‑year window, while others add higher interest costs caused by raised deficits and executive actions such as administrative rule changes and program pauses. The House Budget Committee criticized the CRFB for undercounting by excluding interest‑rate impacts and executive measures, producing a much larger Biden‑era tally that includes $4.8 trillion in enacted legislation plus $4.8 trillion in higher interest costs and $2 trillion in executive actions, a methodological stance that yields a drastically different portrait [3]. The dispute reveals that aggregate headline numbers depend on whether one treats interest‑rate dynamics and administrative decisions as part of an administration’s fiscal footprint.
3. Bipartisan measures and political attribution — who gets credit or blame?
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget reports that 77% of Trump‑era approved debt came from bipartisan legislation, whereas only 29% of Biden’s approved debt was bipartisan, which shifts political attribution depending on whether analysts emphasize timing or cross‑party support [2]. This matters because advocacy groups and partisan offices use those shares to argue narratives about responsibility for rising debt: supporters of each administration point to bipartisan votes when defending policy, while critics emphasize the partisan origin of certain measures. The data show that both administrations oversaw large, bipartisan fiscal responses at different times, and that simple partisan attribution obscures the role of Congress and emergency context in driving borrowing.
4. Macro indicators and debt‑to‑GDP trends — a broader fiscal picture
Debt‑to‑GDP swelled during this period: estimates put the ratio at roughly 126% at end‑2020, easing to around 120% in 2022 and then rising again toward 123% by end‑2024 in some assessments, indicating that public finances worsened sharply during the pandemic and did not fully normalize afterward [4]. Separately, commentators and institutions have flagged compound risks: as the stock of debt grew above $38 trillion and deficits persisted, interest costs and inflation have amplified long‑term budget pressures, raising the stakes of how one counts fiscal impacts [5]. These trends show that short‑term emergency borrowing translated into sustained increases in the nation’s debt burden, regardless of precise attribution between administrations.
5. What to watch next — methodological clarity and political framing
Future assessments should prioritize transparent accounting conventions: analysts need to agree on whether to include interest‑rate effects and executive actions when attributing debt increases to administrations, and to present both legislative‑only and comprehensive measures so readers can see the range of plausible totals [3] [2]. Policymakers and watchdogs will continue to frame numbers for partisan advantage, so readers should look for publication dates, explicit inclusion rules, and bipartisan votes when comparing claims; only by aligning methods can stakeholders reconcile the CRFB’s legislative‑centric totals with broader counts that fold in interest and administrative steps [2] [3].