What do our taxes go to under trumps administration?

1. Why deficits surged and what that meant for where taxes went

The Trump-era fiscal picture shows large tax cuts combined with big spending increases and pandemic-era relief, producing sizeable deficits and a rising national debt. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowered corporate rates and expanded individual benefits like a doubled standard deduction and an increased child tax credit, which reduced federal revenues; subsequent pandemic stimulus and relief packages further enlarged deficits, driving debt toward and beyond 100% of GDP for the first time since World War II ^{[4] [2]}. Independent international institutions and budget analysts warned that these policies accelerate debt accumulation, with projections in some analyses showing U.S. debt-to-GDP trajectories that raise long-run fiscal pressures and constrain future budgets; supporters argue tax cuts spurred growth, but deficit increases were nonetheless the fiscal consequence ^{[5] [6]}.

2. Defense and homeland security: explicit reallocations and proposed boosts

Budget proposals and enacted appropriations under the Trump administration notably prioritized defense and homeland security spending, with documented increases to the Pentagon and Department of Homeland Security cited in administration budget materials and visualizations. Analyses report a $114 billion boost for the Pentagon and a $42 billion increase for DHS in certain proposals, along with a new missile defense allocation (described as a $25 billion “Golden Dome” item in a 2026 proposal), while nondefense discretionary programs faced proposed cuts, particularly in climate, renewable energy, and some low-income assistance areas ^[7]. Advocates framed these moves as restoring military readiness and border security, while critics pointed to tradeoffs: increased defense/homeland allocations were financed alongside tax cuts and higher deficits, squeezing other domestic priorities and altering the composition of federal spending.

3. Tax policy winners: businesses and many households saw lower nominal bills

The 2017 tax law enacted substantial reductions for corporations and broad changes to individual taxation, such as lower statutory corporate tax rates (35% to 21%) and larger standard deductions, which directly lowered federal receipts and redistributed the tax burden across sectors and income groups. Proponents emphasize that these changes reduced compliance costs and incentivized investment, and some models forecasted modest long-term GDP gains tied to later tax legislation that extended cuts ^{[1] [6]}. However, critics note that the cuts materially shrank revenue relative to prior law and, when paired with other spending, contributed to rising deficits; analyses differ over the exact distributional outcomes and growth offsets, with the empirical debate on net growth effects ongoing.

4. Pandemic relief and temporary spending: a large but distinct driver of outlays

A separate, dominant driver of federal spending during this period was the multi-trillion-dollar pandemic response, which entailed direct aid, unemployment support, and small-business programs. Analysts attribute a significant portion of the decade’s deficit increase to these emergency measures, with combined tax cuts and pandemic legislation accounting for trillions in reduced revenue and additional outlays, accelerating debt accumulation and complicating year-over-year budget comparisons ^[2]. Policymakers framed pandemic spending as necessary emergency response; budget watchdogs and fiscal hawks warned it compounded long-term fiscal challenges when layered onto preexisting tax reductions and defense increases.

5. Transparency concerns and taxpayer spending at private properties

A recurring controversy involved government spending at properties owned by the sitting president and broader concerns about traceability of federal dollars. Investigations and watchdog groups documented millions in government payments tied to official travel and events at Trump properties, and raised questions about conflicts of interest and enforcement of emoluments rules; estimates vary, with specific tallies cited in oversight reports and congressional inquiries ^{[8] [9]}. Separately, some analyses argue that administrative changes reduced Congress’s and the public’s ability to trace certain federal expenditures, creating accountability gaps; proponents of the administration’s actions argue these moves were governance reforms, while critics say they hinder fiscal oversight ^[3].

6. Big picture: tradeoffs, contested claims, and what was omitted

The clearest fact is that tax policy choices, emergency spending, and allocation priorities together reshaped what federal revenue funded: larger shares toward defense and homeland security, lower receipts from major tax cuts, and massive pandemic-related outlays that together elevated deficits. Analyses supplied here diverge on intent and impact—supportive accounts emphasize middle-class tax relief and defense rebuilding, while critical accounts highlight ballooning debt, possible self-dealing at private properties, and reduced transparency ^{[1] [7] [9]}. Omitted from these snapshots are longer-term macroeconomic feedbacks, dynamic distributional studies, and finalized audits of government payments to private entities; those gaps matter for a full accounting of how individual taxpayers’ dollars were ultimately allocated.