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.
Fact check: What are the long-term implications of the national debt growth under Trump and Biden for the US economy?
Executive Summary
The competing claims about debt growth under Presidents Trump and Biden center on differing attributions and projected fiscal paths: one narrative credits Trump-era policy and a new Republican proposal with improving the debt-to-GDP outlook, while other analyses and watchdogs document large additions to the national debt and warn of accelerating debt levels now exceeding $38 trillion. Reconciling these requires separating isolated projections and political claims from historical borrowing totals and near-term debt dynamics, and recognizing widespread expert concern about rising interest costs and limited political consensus on structural reforms [1] [2] [3].
1. Shocking Totals and Rapid Acceleration — Why $38 Trillion Matters Right Now
The US national debt recently passed $38 trillion, a milestone underscoring both accumulated past deficits and a recent acceleration in borrowing that saw a $1 trillion increase in just two months, the fastest growth outside the pandemic era [3] [4]. This sharp rise coincides with worsening interest burdens — approaching roughly $1 trillion per year in interest payments — which transforms debt from a long-run abstract into a pressing fiscal constraint because interest crowds out other priorities and increases sensitivity to higher market rates [4]. Watchdogs warn this trajectory is unsustainable without policy change [4].
2. Historical Contributions — Who Borrowed What and How Much
Analyses attribute large additions to the debt to both administrations but quantify them differently: an assessment finds $8.4 trillion in net borrowing associated with Trump over a ten-year window, versus $4.3 trillion tied to Biden with seven months remaining in his term, with the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget emphasizing tax cuts and spending deals as key drivers of the larger Trump-era increase [2]. These figures show that recent debt growth is the product of cumulative policy choices across administrations, and different accounting windows, revenue cycles, and policy interactions materially affect the headline totals [2].
3. Political Claims vs. Independent Projections — Contrasting Forecasts
Political messaging from the Trump side asserts that a new package (the "One Big Beautiful Bill") will improve the fiscal outlook and reduce debt-to-GDP to 94% by 2034, while projecting Biden’s path would push the ratio to 117%; the Council of Economic Advisers is cited as endorsing the pro-growth claim [1]. Critics counter that such projections often rely on optimistic growth assumptions, one-off revenue effects, or exclusion of likely future spending commitments; independent watchdogs caution that debt-to-GDP projections are highly sensitive to assumptions about growth, interest rates, and policy permanence, making partisan forecasts difficult to accept at face value [1] [2].
4. Economic Risks — Growth, Crowding Out, and Crisis Probabilities
Experts warn that a rapidly growing national debt can diminish long-term growth, limit fiscal flexibility, and raise the probability of financial stress or crisis if investors demand higher yields; high debt leaves less room for countercyclical policy during recessions and can crowd out public investment [5]. The combination of rising interest costs and political gridlock over entitlement reforms heightens these risks, because aging demographics will push Social Security and Medicare spending higher absent legislative change, intensifying the funding gap and the urgency of credible long-term plans [5] [4].
5. Revenue Surges, Deficit Changes, and the Role of Policy Mix
Recent fiscal data show volatile swings: a reported 4% decline in the fiscal 2025 deficit relative to 2024, driven by a 6% rise in federal revenue including tariffs, wages, and realized capital gains, is cited as evidence that policy can materially affect near-term deficits [6]. However, one-year improvements do not necessarily alter multi-decade trajectories, because structural drivers — tax code design, demographic trends, and mandatory spending growth — determine long-run debt. Short-term revenue gains can be transitory, and relying on them to justify permanent spending increases risks future fiscal stress [6] [4].
6. Disputed Remedies — Growth, Taxes, or Structural Reform?
Proposals to address the debt fall into three contested camps: grow the economy to shrink the debt-to-GDP ratio (growth-first), raise taxes and reduce deficits now (revenue-first), or enact structural reforms to entitlement programs (structural-first). Political messaging touts growth as a solution, but analysts like Ray Dalio and watchdogs argue that growth alone is unlikely to offset current deficit paths without credible fiscal reforms [7] [5]. Each approach carries trade-offs: immediate revenue increases can slow growth, growth strategies may not materialize at the needed scale, and entitlement reforms face intense political hurdles [5] [7].
7. Bottom Line — What Policymakers and Citizens Should Watch
The data show a large, rising national debt shaped by policies from both parties, recent rapid acceleration to $38 trillion, and increasing interest burdens that compress fiscal choices [2] [3] [4]. Evaluating claims about which administration “caused” future debt paths requires attention to accounting windows, economic assumptions, and policy permanence; readers should prioritize independent, multi-year projections and watch interest costs, demographic trends, and enacted policy changes rather than partisan one-off claims [1] [2] [4].