Feds Borrowed $1.3 Trillion in the First 6 Months of This Fiscal Year
That's the highest total outside of the COVID-19 pandemic, and now Congress wants to borrow even more.

President Donald Trump stood before a joint session of Congress less than six weeks ago and vowed to do something that has not been done in nearly a quarter century: balance the federal budget.
New numbers from the Treasury and recent developments in Congress suggest that's not going to happen. Indeed, all indications are pointing in the opposite direction.
The federal government borrowed $1.3 trillion during the first six months of the current fiscal year, the Treasury Department reported last week. That's the second-highest six-month total in history, bested only by the record set in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Spending is on the rise too. Over the first six months of the fiscal year, the federal government spent more than $3.5 trillion, up from the $3.25 trillion spent during the same six-month period in the previous fiscal year. Year-over-year spending is up by $139 billion during the three months since Trump was inaugurated, according to the Treasury data.
Meanwhile, Congress is moving ahead with a Republican-backed budget plan that could add trillions more to the deficit over the next 10 years.
The budget resolution that moved through both chambers of Congress earlier this month would allow lawmakers to authorize an additional $5.8 trillion in borrowing over the next 10 years. That additional borrowing would be used to offset new spending and the extension of the 2017 tax cuts, with the exact parameters of the budget bill to be decided later. When interest costs are included in the calculation, the budget resolution would add nearly $7 trillion to the deficit, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB).
"The numbers are undeniable. We are racking up debt at an alarming pace, and it's unlikely to end any time soon," said Maya MacGuineas, president of the CRFB, in a press release. "In fact, lawmakers seem hellbent on adding to that sum with trillions of unpaid-for tax cuts and spending increases."
The budget resolution would result in interest costs doubling over the next 10 years. The CFRB estimates that interest payments will consume 27 percent of all federal revenue by 2034—up from just 9 percent in 2021—if the budget resolution is adopted.
Romina Boccia, director of budget and entitlement policy at the Cato Institute, calls the budget resolution a "train wreck" that "actively worsens our nation's debt trajectory."
While spending climbs and Congress eyes even more borrowing, the Trump administration's attempts at cutting government are coming in well short of expectations. Last week Elon Musk of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) reported that he now anticipates DOGE's cuts will produce $150 billion in savings for the current fiscal year—a significant drop from his earlier promises to cut $1 trillion or even $2 trillion.
Cutting waste and fraud from the executive branch is a worthwhile goal, but it should be obvious by now that such efforts are no substitute for actual budget cuts. If the budget resolution would increase borrowing by $7 trillion over 10 years, that's $700 billion annually—or more than four times the amount of savings Musk is now promising to deliver.
In other words, the DOGE's projected savings will not even offset future deficit growth—to say nothing of helping balance the budget.
By definition, you can't balance the budget while borrowing is increasing. It's highly unlikely that borrowing will decrease until spending does—and it's all but impossible if the spending goes while you're also cutting domestic taxes, as Republicans want to do.
Congress and the Trump administration should try to avoid allowing a bad situation to keep getting worse. Until they do that, a balanced budget will be just a fantasy.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
What percentage of that was post Jan 20? How much of that was spent in the last two and a half months?
Super good questions. Weird how the article doesn't explore them. Must have just been an oversight.
We know that the current US federal government fiscal year (FY25) began on October 1, 2024, and March 31, 2025 was six months in.
I'm sure if we ask our resident financial experts, Buttplug and Sarcasmic, they will explain to us that all the spending occurred in the last two months.
Last week Elon Musk of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) reported that he now anticipates DOGE's cuts will produce $150 billion in savings for the current fiscal year
In reality the 30,000 jobs they cut will save about $20 billion this FY.
We knew that the $2 trillion was a joke. There will be a significant amount of revenue in form of capital gains (thanks to the Biden bull market) but after that deficits will explode.
Oh look, Buttplug's pulled out his crystal ball and is making up number's again.
So sorry all this is happening to you. Without all that USAID money Alex is going to have to crack his own checkbook if Open Society is ever going to hire you back.
The true dumbass was anyone who believed that Elon would cut $2 trillion.
Won't somebody think of the 50-centers?
Long term pension is worth more than you or others give credit to. Accumulated sick leave, banked time etc. I don't think you are whomever you get your jobs savings from really is doing a correct calculation of savings or it's dishonest
Fiscal year 2025 began on October 1st, 2024. So you have nearly 4 months of the previous administration figured into those 6 month numbers. Even if efforts have been made since to try to reign in spending, it may not show in that report, due to the time period used.
And it seems that there has been a LOT of resistance to the spending cuts that have been attempted. What they really need to do is pass a bill - an actual budget - through congress, and quit with these continuing resolutions that authorize just about anything and everything when it comes to spending.
You never once complained about Biden's deficits you hypocrite. So stop talking about Trump.
ZZZZZZZ
As pointed out above, a good portion of this Biden. And we have lawsuits trying to stop any and all cuts DOGE is trying to make.
Do you know why people are filing lawsuits and winning? Nope, not because corrupt Democrats are out to get Trump. Because we have a government of laws, and Trump is not changing the laws. He's doing whatever he wants, regardless of what the law says.
During Clinton's presidency 400,000 jobs were cut from the federal workforce. Do you know how many lawsuits there were? None. Do you know why? Nope, not because he's a Democrat. Because he worked with Congress to make his cuts legislatively.
That's why I keep saying that Trump needs to take advantage of the GOP majority in Congress right now. And I mean right now. Because, thanks to him tanking the economy, Republicans are going to get their asses handed to them in 2026 and 2028.
Why do the inferior Courts keep getting overturned at the appeals buddy?
If we are a nation of laws, why aren't the inferior Courts requiring bonds as the law requires for TROs buddy?
You seem to not actually know the laws.
And then right back to congress needs to do it right after you blamed Trump.
Fucking hilarious.
What tanking economy? Inflation actually dropped. Investments are up. Good employment numbers (even with the fed lay offs!) Are you just saying shit to say it?
Sarc, tell us you’re a Democrat without actually coming out and saying you’re a Democrat.
InsaneTrollLogic uses insane troll logic: You are criticizing my side, therefore you support the other side!
Not to mention that sarcasmic was supporting his criticism with facts you don't dispute...
I find his comments are best left unread.
I find your comments to be based from ignorance as usual.
What facts? He is wrong as usual.
https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/papers/bkgrd/brief.html
The National Performance Review was created by President Bill Clinton on March 3, 1993. He appointed Vice President Al Gore as its leader. The President gave the review a 6-month deadline -- report results to him by September 7, 1993.
The final report, Creating a Government That Works Better and Costs Less, was presented to President Clinton in a ceremony on the White House lawn on September 7, 1993. Immediately after the White House event, the President and Vice President made a tour of the country to promote the report and to issue Presidential directives to begin implementing its recommendations. By December 1993, the President had signed 16 directives implementing specific recommendations, including cutting the work force by 252,000 positions, cutting internal regulations in half, and requiring agencies to set customer service standards
I like how you defend incorrect information lol.
You know what's really stupid about these Trump defenders? I say that Trump should work with Congress so that everything he does isn't immediately undone by the next Democratic president, and they respond by saying I'm a leftist who opposes what Trump is doing. Can you imagine being so stupid that you think someone who wants what your guy is doing to be put into law really opposes everything your guy is doing? It hurts my head trying to imagine how stupid someone must be to believe that, and at least a half a dozen idiots in these comments believe that. Something about defending Trump turns brains into mush. Or you've got to have mush for brains to defend Trump. Either way these idiots have mush between their ears.
Because nothing Congress has done has ever been undone.
What the President does can be undone quickly and only by changing the President. Undoing what Congress has done takes electing a different majority in both chambers and getting enough of that new majority to actually want to vote for that specific change and overcoming procedural hurdles that could derail it.
Besides, there are a lot of other essential reasons why the Constitution gives Congress the power to levy taxes, not the President.
He's one of the half dozen with mush for brains that I was talking about in the comment he replied to.
You both remain ignorant due to the decade plus of baseline budgeting. You want the ratchet to stay one way with an ever increasing spending rate. Full stop.
Fuck off retard.
Hilarious seeing you claim this even with the link above of what Clinton actually did.
Everything you write is to protect the left and based in ignorance.
Are you even aware Clinton was asking for line item vetos? Of course not. Because you're fucking ignorant.
You know the dems will never cut and hope there are enough GOPe yo stop those cuts. That is why you want to defer to congress. Full. Stop.
I mean that does happen but......does that really detract from the Sarcastic point? Congress changes are much harder to make, and harder to undo. Unless the President just....refuses to listen or lets things sit, decides to directly float it, or obfuscates via execution/administrative shuffle. As administrations seem to be getting better at doing, I mean look at the last half dozen or so. Regardless I would also use that very point of harder changes to point out that the margins are thin in the Congress, so Sarcasmics comment is less sympathetic then they argue, since it would likely not go anywhere in congress by any large margin. But then again that is a feature, a divided congress represents a divided nation, and therefore good statecraft would be needed. Both sides have spent that, people will struggle to work together.
I know right. The decades of spending growth shows how hard it is to keep growing spending.
I mean the political will, not actual money.
With spending there is virtually never a will to cut.
Decaying cuts as not the right process will continue to grow spending.
On top of that congress can't bind a future congress, so there are no protections from growth because congress does it.
You were against the cuts before you thought of this excuse.
You keep calling the audits themselves illegal.
You keep saying what is found in the audits is fake.
You're fucking lying. But apparently it is good enough to trick leftists like Jason.
"During Clinton's presidency 400,000 jobs were cut from the federal workforce. Do you know how many lawsuits there were? None. Do you know why? Nope, not because he's a Democrat. Because he worked with Congress to make his cuts legislatively."
What hogwash. Do you really believe if President Trump worked with the Republican Senate and the Republican Congress to cut up to a half-million workers from the federal payroll the workers and other Democrat politicians would NOT file lawsuits challenging the terminations?
Really?
Democrats are filing lawsuits because PROBATIONARY federal workers were let go - these are workers which can be let go at any time for any reason.
No the "President needs to work with Congress" argument rings hollow. I remember when Harry Reid refused to cut federal workers because, I kid you not, every job represented a person or family that relies on that job to survive... got that, because workers need the money, you can't fire them. THAT is the Democrat mindset.
He isn't even correct with his assertion.
You never once complained about Biden's deficits you hypocrite, and this is one of them.
Or you going to tell us that all this spending happened in the last two months of the six month period?
Biden's deficits were lower.
"The federal government borrowed $1.3 trillion during the first six months of the current fiscal year"
The fiscal year which started October 1st and ended March 31st?
Pretty silly. Not only was ⅔ of that period while Biden was President, not even Trump can change spending on his first day in office. Slag on him all you want for not being serious about cutting spending, but don't blame that $1.3 trillion on him.
ETA: Oooh, and then it gets better.
"Spending is on the rise too. Over the first six months of the fiscal year, the federal government spent more than $3.5 trillion, up from the $3.25 trillion spent during the same six-month period in the previous fiscal year. Year-over-year spending is up by $139 billion during the three months since Trump was inaugurated, according to the Treasury data."
No, jackwipe, March 31st was not three months from inauguration, it was two months and 11 days.
What did you expect? It's Boehm. He has to take his cheap shots where he can find them.
It would sure be interesting knowing how Reason conducts interviews.
KMW: "Are you a libertarian?"
Boehm: "I have libertarian thoughts and tendencies from time to time."
KMW: "We can cure that."
KMW: "What do you think of Trump?"
Boehm: "AAAAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!"
KMW: "You're hired."
The MAGA survey known as the NY Fed is going to disappoint Boehm.
https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/ny-fed-survey-inflation-expectations-make-mockery-umich-propaganda
Boehm - “How dare you cut and slash spending haphazardly. Also, you are borrowing too much.”
Also, is Congress borrowing “more” ? Yes, but not More than they have if the Senate passes the Big Beautiful Bill the House just did.
Remember their article about how Trump hadn't created a meritocracy on government within his first two months?
Year-over-year spending is up by $139 billion during the three months since Trump was inaugurated, according to the Treasury data.
Nope. Not true. Elon says he saved the federal government $150 billion. Who you going to believe, the Treasury or the first buddy?
Or it could have been up by $289 billion?
See. This is why Sarc is so desperate to delay spending cuts, audits, and everything else, demanding congress has to do the work. So he can blame Trump.
He demands zero action from the executive on cuts. He defends the inferior judges using TROs to stop cuts and audits. Then has the audacity to blame Trump.
Sarc is a Democrat.
The federal government borrowed $1.3 trillion during the first six months of the current fiscal year,
No. The federal government has borrowed $28 trillion since the beginning of 2024. Now maybe $1.3 trillion is NEW borrowings but the govt has to continually reborrow all its debt that matures - sometimes multiple times per year.
If it fails to do so, then the US economy hits a financial crisis and will fall apart. If those buyers of debt at each auction are just not much interested in buying, then interest rates will go up and the economy will go into recession.
Since we can no longer issue long-term debt, it means there are $28 trillion opportunities every year for banks and Wall St to tell the government what the government will actually do. Taxpayers are irrelevant because taxpayers don't pay for government. eg - the reason Trump's tariff plan had to be scuttled is because some financial players sold off Treasuries and the dollar which ensured that a potential financial crisis was imminent.
Taxpayers are irrelevant because taxpayers don't pay for government.
And yet they will toss you in the can if you don’t pay taxes.
Yes. Life's a bitch isn't it. Either taxes fund govt without debt - or taxes pay the interest to bondholders to lend (create) money to fund government.
Libertarians (and Rs) are so fucking stupid. You're gonna pay taxes or pay in kind or provide labor. Grow the fuck up. The only question is will you be a citizen and share in the control - or will you be a serf and give up that control to others.
So taxpayers are relevant?
I'm not going to try and speak for JFree, but the way I am reading what he wrote is that the debt is so high now that that borrowing is what is really funding the government (or at least a lot of it), and taxpayers are thus really just paying for the interest on that debt. (If that is what he's saying, then it seems like an exaggeration of what is really happening, not literally the case.)
The main thing that I also see is that Trump blinked and "paused" the "Liberation Day" celebrations not because of how it was affecting ordinary taxpayers, but because of how it was affecting the people that hold the debt and whether they would keep buying more of it.
That is my read as well. Looks like an exaggeration, in both the situation, and the idea that an average citizen has any substance in share in control.
You realize it is pretty fucking simple to see what tax revenue and government spending is every year right?
You call it exaggeration. I call it a continuum of fraudulent accounting.
We do not ever set aside some annual amount to amortize principal from previous deficits. All we ever account for is the current year's interest cash flow. But every single person who lent us the money to fund government expects to be paid back. That disconnect between cash accounting and accrual accounting is what occurs in a financial crisis - with the different types of borrowers that Hyman Minsky described - hedge borrowers, speculative borrowers, and Ponzi borrowers.
Govt is, at best, a speculative borrower - we pay the interest but always expect the principal to be rolled over forever (or paid back through asset appreciation).
Whenever there are questions as to whether Ponzi borrowing is occurring (usually in the private sector not government), a financial crisis occurs. Since we use fraudulent accounting, we are always leverage ourselves deeper INTO future financial crises.
I don't know what that point of exaggeration v continuum of fraud is. But if we lose the marginal demand for our currency - by foreigners - that allows us to be the reserve currency, we'll likely find out.
How many times do I have to scream it?
The runaway spending MUST stop, otherwise the US will go bankrupt ala the Soviet Union, or Sweden almost did in the mid-1990's did and Italy almost did in the early 1980's.
Then what?
The dollar will be useless, and our once great republic will be another third world hell hole...like Illinois.
Hey buddy, I live in Illinois and... yeah you're right. It's a hellhole.
Table 1.
Oct, Nov, Dec Deficits $711B
Jan, Feb, Mar Deficits $596B
Yell skunk all you want Boehm.
The numbers are going down.
Half of the year isn't on Trump. But goes to show the 1.5 trillion over 10 years they plan to cut isn't anything but a gimmick. We need deep cuts on the next budget, first one I'll give the benefit of the tax rates not increasing.
Cut Spending.
How much of a cut are you willing to accept in your social security checks.
How many hospitals do you want to close to save money on Medicare and Medicaid?
How many defense contractor jobs do you want to disappear, and how many soldiers, seamen, and airmen do you want to fire.
If you don't make huge cuts in these areas you have accomplished nothing towards disappearing the budget deficit unless you raise taxes.
This article exists for the singular purpose of giving the lowfo NPCs a line to repeat. It's 100% fake news, and Eric knows it, but the goal isn't to report the facts - it's to press the narrative and arm the useful idiots.