How much of the One Big Beautiful Bill’s cost is absorbed by higher deficits versus spending cuts?

1. The arithmetic the CBO published: more revenue loss than spending cuts

The CBO’s official score of the enacted law calculates a 10‑year increase in the unified deficit of about $3.4 trillion, a figure that reflects a roughly $4.5 trillion reduction in federal revenues and about $1.1 trillion of reductions in direct spending—meaning the headline cost is primarily from tax cuts that aren’t fully offset by spending changes ^[1]. That split—~$4.5 trillion of revenue loss versus ~$1.1 trillion of spending reductions—makes clear that the majority of the law’s ten‑year price tag is being absorbed through larger deficits rather than one‑for‑one cuts to spending programs ^[1].

2. Independent budgets echo the same ratio, with nuance on timing and composition

Other nonpartisan and independent fiscal analysts reach comparable conclusions: the Peterson Foundation finds net direct spending reductions of roughly $1.0 trillion over ten years while the bill still increases deficits by $3.4 trillion because its tax cuts and new spending push net borrowing higher ^[2]. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget documents larger totals—roughly $5.9 trillion of tax cuts and spending versus $2.5 trillion of offsets (plus interest)—which likewise implies a substantial residual financed by deficits and interest costs ^[3]. In short, across scores, spending reductions absorb roughly a quarter to a third of the conventional 10‑year revenue loss, leaving two‑thirds or more to show up as higher deficits ^{[2] [3] [1]}.

3. Partisan narratives contest the baseline—but not the raw numbers

Republican proponents and the White House argue alternative baselines and dynamic growth assumptions produce much smaller deficit outcomes or even net reductions, claiming the bill secures $1.5 trillion or more in spending savings and could reduce deficits by a few hundred billion dollars under their preferred scenarios ^{[4] [5] [6]}. Those claims rest on different assumptions—chiefly that the previously scheduled expirations of 2017 tax provisions are unrealistic or that future growth, tariffs, and subsequent discretionary cuts will offset revenue losses—and are disputed by independent scorekeepers who use the statutory baseline ^{[4] [7] [8]}.

4. Dynamic effects, interest, and the long run change the absorption picture

When analysts incorporate dynamic feedback and interest costs, the “how much is absorbed by cuts vs deficits” story shifts but does not reverse: some dynamic estimates trim the 10‑year deficit increase to roughly $3.0 trillion (Tax Foundation’s estimate after a $940 billion dynamic offset and >$1 trillion of spending cuts), while Yale’s Budget Lab emphasizes that higher debt raises interest payments and economic drag over decades—meaning interest and compounding turn much of today’s tax cuts into even larger future deficit burdens ^{[9] [10] [11]}. Thus even where spending cuts exist, the net effect is that deficits and long‑term interest costs absorb a large fraction of the law’s fiscal impact ^{[10] [11]}.

5. Bottom line: spending cuts blunt but do not shoulder the bill

The clearest, nonpartisan arithmetic available shows roughly $1.0–1.5 trillion of net spending reductions over ten years partly offsetting $4.5 trillion in revenue losses, leaving roughly $3.0–3.4 trillion of higher deficits (plus associated interest) in the 2025–2034 window ^{[1] [2] [3] [9]}. Partisan claims that the law reduces deficits rely on alternate baselines, optimistic growth or tariff scenarios, and future legislative actions; independent CBO and budget‑analyst numbers reveal that spending cuts absorb only a minority of the law’s cost while higher deficits and subsequent interest payments absorb the majority ^{[1] [4] [7]}.