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: How does Biden's debt addition compare to previous presidents like Trump and Obama?
Executive summary
President Biden’s addition to the national debt is consistently reported as smaller than President Trump’s using the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget’s ten‑year window — $4.3 trillion for Biden vs. $8.4 trillion for Trump, with alternative tallies that exclude COVID relief narrowing or reversing that gap depending on methodology [1] [2]. Multiple sources show conflicting totals — some attribute larger Biden increases tied to pandemic relief while others show Trump’s tax cuts and spending deals as the main drivers — so the headline comparison depends on the period, accounting window, and whether COVID relief and timing distortions are included [3] [4].
1. What the major claims say — the simple tallies that circulate
The most frequent claim extracted from the provided analyses is that Trump added roughly $8.4 trillion to federal borrowing over his term while Biden has added about $4.3 trillion so far, a figure that appears in multiple reports dated June 24, 2024 [1] [2]. Alternative figures presented alongside those tallies adjust for COVID‑era relief: under one adjustment Trump’s net becomes $4.8 trillion and Biden’s $2.2 trillion when that relief is excluded, which differentially frames the responsibility for pandemic-related borrowing [1] [2]. These are headline claims used in political debate and reporting.
2. Conflicting tallies — why different sources report different totals
Analysts report divergent totals because of different measurement windows and exclusions. Some tallies use a ten‑year budget window that counts future approved borrowing, while others measure debt change only during each president’s time in office; some exclude pandemic relief entirely. The Investopedia synthesis contradicts the CRFB figures by attributing roughly $8.4 trillion to Biden and $7.8 trillion to Trump, demonstrating how methodology choice flips the result [4]. The presence of multiple, credible but methodologically distinct tallies means any simple one‑number comparison is incomplete without describing the accounting rules used [3] [4].
3. Percentage change and context — Trump’s larger proportional spike
One line of analysis emphasizes percentage increase in the national debt rather than dollar totals, reporting that President Trump increased the debt by 40.43% during his term, while President Biden’s increase so far is 24.75% [3]. Percentage measures adjust for the base level of debt entering each presidency and show that Trump’s tenure included sharper growth relative to the starting point. This percentage framing highlights how tax cuts, spending, and economic contraction—especially during COVID—shift the rate of increase in ways that raw dollar totals can obscure [3].
4. Major drivers — COVID relief, tax cuts, and discretionary policies
The analysts converge on the point that different policies drove debt increases at different times. Trump’s larger debt totals are linked to the 2017 tax cuts and subsequent spending deals that raised deficits, while Biden’s figures are substantially affected by COVID relief measures enacted early in his term and other policy choices like student debt and healthcare actions [3] [1]. The Biden administration also touts strong economic growth and employment gains in its defense, arguing economic performance and recovery efforts must be weighed against raw borrowing numbers [5].
5. Recent trajectory — debt level and servicing costs are rising fast
Beyond presidential attributions, the recent data show national debt continuing to accelerate: total public debt surpassed $37–$38 trillion in 2025, with FY2025 borrowing increasing by about $2.17 trillion and debt‑to‑GDP ratios exceeding 115 percent for debt held by the public [6] [7]. Analysts warn that rising interest‑service costs are compounding sustainability concerns and that if current trends persist, more revenue will be required just to pay interest rather than fund other priorities [7] [6]. These trends shift the debate from presidential blame to long‑term fiscal trajectory.
6. Political framing and methodological agendas to watch for
Claim framing often reveals an agenda: conservative analyses typically emphasize large post‑tax‑cut deficits under Trump, while some outlets sympathetic to Biden highlight pandemic response as necessary borrowing or adjust windows to favor Biden [1] [4]. Nonpartisan budget groups like the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget present precise ten‑year budget windows but still make methodological choices about inclusion of emergency spending. Readers should note whether a headline excludes COVID relief, uses a ten‑year scoring window, or measures only in‑office changes, because each choice materially alters the comparative result [2] [1].
7. Bottom line — numbers matter, but context matters more
The core fact across sources is that both presidents presided over large increases in federal debt, but whether Trump “ran up” more debt than Biden depends on the accounting method and time window chosen: CRFB and several budget trackers show Trump’s increase larger on a ten‑year basis, while other compilations using different windows or attributions can show the opposite [1] [2] [4]. The more consequential takeaway is that debt growth has remained rapid into 2025, with rising servicing costs turning a political scorekeeping exercise into a policy challenge that demands bipartisan attention beyond presidential comparisons [7] [6].