The 'Big Beautiful Bill' Will Add $2.4 Trillion to the Deficit
That total will rise to about $3 trillion once the interest costs of more borrowing are included.

In March, President Donald Trump stood before a joint session of Congress and vowed to "do what has not been done in 24 years: balance the federal budget."
The first major legislative package of Trump's second term, however, will throw the federal budget farther out of balance, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded in an updated assessment of the bill.
The CBO estimates that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which cleared the House late last month and is awaiting a vote in the Senate, will increase deficits by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years. The bill will reduce tax collections by an estimated $3.75 trillion over that period, while reducing government spending by an estimated $1.3 trillion.
The budget deficit is the gap between how much the federal government spends and how much tax revenue it collects in a single year. If spending is higher than revenue—as has been the case in every single year since 2001—then the government must borrow to fill in the gap.
The "Big Beautiful Bill" will, in effect, force the federal government to borrow more heavily in the future. And all that extra borrowing comes with more costs, since interest must be paid. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonprofit that advocates for reducing the deficit, estimates that the bill will add about $3 trillion to the deficit once interest costs are included in the calculation. The bill would also double the federal government's interest payments from nearly $900 billion in 2024 to $1.8 trillion by 2034, the group estimates.
The bill's actual impact on the deficit is likely to be even larger than what the CBO estimates, due to several provisions that are meant to game the number-crunching agency's scoring process. Several of the tax breaks in the bill—such as the higher standard deduction, an expanded child tax credit, and tax exemptions for tips and overtime pay—are temporary and will expire by 2029. But those policies are clearly not meant to be temporary, and if extended, they would further widen the deficit in 2030 and beyond.
The extension of the 2017 income tax cuts is essential to avoid a massive tax hike that would hit nearly all American households. And many of the spending cuts included in the bill—such as new work requirements for Medicaid and food stamps—are worthwhile efforts.
But the problem with the bill, as the CBO's report outlines in stark terms, is that the spending cuts and tax cuts do not offset one another. That would be an imprudent decision even if the federal government was not deep in debt and already on course to see borrowing increase in future years. Given its current fiscal situation, piling more borrowing costs on future American taxpayers seems utterly foolish.
Could revenue from tariffs help to offset the budgetary impact of the tax bill? The CBO released an assessment of Trump's tariffs on Wednesday showing that those higher taxes on imports would reduce the budget deficit by about $2.8 trillion over the next decade. In a statement, the White House touted that report as proving that Trump's policies, as a whole, would reduce rather than expand the budget deficit.
The first problem with that is that those tariffs might not remain in place long enough to matter. They have been in constant flux for months as Trump has raised, lowered, paused, and altered them on a nearly weekly basis. Two federal courts have also ruled that the tariffs were unlawfully imposed—and if those decisions are affirmed on appeal, then the tariff revenue could vanish entirely. (The CBO's assessment did not take into account the court rulings or any changes made to the tariffs since May 13.)
The other problem is that the White House is effectively admitting that its tariff policies will offset the economic benefits of the tax cuts it is trying to pass through Congress—which the White House is also arguing will boost economic growth.
In short, the Trump administration is trying to have its tax cuts and eat them too. Here's a better plan: Draft a tax bill that doesn't add to the deficit, so that the tariffs don't need to be a part of the picture at all.
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
Eric, you’ve been making this same stupid mistake too long to be just accidental or carelessless. It’s got to be intentional. You are intentionally lying.
Deficits are annual budget deficits. National debt is cumulative.
Your $2.4T over ten years is meaningless. That is an average of $240B each year, which is only a 10% increase above current annual deficits. And if it’s an average, it’s probably less this year and more in the last (2035?) year, which makes it less than the $240B average.
Stop trotting out the 10 year figure as if it were the one year figure. It’s dishonest.
But it’s a BIG number!
If you can’t do math, go BIG!
And as if nothing else will change over the next 10 years. These projections are always nonsense. Let’s focus on making the deficit 0 this year.
CBO projections are always wrong. But they’re consistent in their wrongness. So you can make relatively accurate guesses by taking CBO predictions and doing a little math.
https://fee.org/articles/the-cbo-is-almost-but-not-quite-useless/
And if you don’t already listen to Words and Numbers you probably should. I got a bit jealous when JD said he met the guys at FreedomFest.
Look at sarc defending using bad models to push a narrative to raise income taxes.
The only rate change that Democrats support is the increasing the top rate to 39.6%. That alone gets us spitting distance to 3% deficit/GDP ratio. Keep in mind—in a consumer spending economy all tax cuts ultimately benefit the wealthy because dollars can only be spent by people that live paycheck to paycheck!! So lower income tax cuts benefit the wealthy.
And when Medicaid pays a surgeon for performing a surgery on a poor person do you think that benefits the poor person or the doctor/nurses/hospital?? Or do you think poor Americans should die in the streets and surgeons should have slots unfilled?? Btw, surgeons expect all slots to be filled and most can’t risk playing golf because they could harm their hands.
this has to be one of the stupidest posts i have ever seen. wow….
Yeah, surgeons should work for free! Of course, you would never give out a free handjibber! 😉
Careful, a really retarded grey box appeared beneath you.
A neocunt chimes in…they never learn! 😉
The CBO is wrong. They are in reality a most partisan and democrat leaning “nonpartisan” organization. The assertion that the budget will add 2.4 trillion is only an estimate from the aforementioned less than nonpartisan group based on often wrong models. Compare to the nonsense climate change models. The bill extends Trump’s 2017 tax cuts without which this country will experience the greatest tax increase in US history. The CBO analysis fails to take into account the devastating effects of such a thing on the economy and they fail to address the benefits of lower taxes both on the economy and government revenue. Lowering taxes always results in increases in government revenue, notwithstanding how some twist themselves into knots trying to deny this reality for political reasons.
He’s a fvcking simpleton who can’t even grasp the basics, no matter how many times it is spelled out for him
Plus, he repeats the CBO fantasy that keeping taxes at the current level somehow adds to the deficit, as it allowing them to rise will not have any ill effects on economic activity and tax receipts.
Trump inherited 3% deficit/GDP ratio from Obama…Trump increased the ratio to 4.5% before Covid. Trump failed in his first term as president and he knows that which is why he floated a 39.6% top rate.
The President does not control the budget, you stupid low IQ far left brainwashed Democrat cultist….Congress does
So Obama and Clinton didn’t force higher taxes?? Gingrich and Boehner supported a 39,6% top tax rate. Hmmm
the best thing about clockwork is it regularly appeases my OCD.
They are probably overestimating the reduction in tax revenues (I hope). But cutting the budget to offset even the excessive projections is still what I’d call a decent start.
It is an extension of the current baseline. Claiming this as a cost means they are for raising income taxes.
Not one of these articles will admit the spending baseline is cut through reforms to snap, medicaid, and other programs. Stuff we usually see libertarians support.
Every article focused on a deficit solely caused by not raising taxes.
WHY DID TRUMP CREATE SUCH A BIG GOVERNMENT AND NATIONAL DEBT IN JUST 4 MONTHS?!?
“DEMOCRATS RAN HUGE DEFICITS FIRST AND YOU DIDN’T COMPLAIN SO STOP TALKING ABOUT TRUMP YOU HYPOCRITE!!!!”
nobody ran deficits once.
You cheered those deficits when you and shrike were saying how great the Biden economy was dumdum.
Trump inherited 3% deficit/GDP ratio. Biden inherited 15%!! Nobody has ever gone from 15% to 3% in one term. Kamala would have had 3% by 2026 on the same timeframe as Obama.
So Mr. Boehm what specific proposals do you desire to deal with the deficits? Do you want higher taxes and if so what type and for how much? Or would you prefer to cut spending? And if cutting spending is your preference what programs and by how much?
He is complaining about a bill that does both and blaming the ones proposing the modest moves in the right direction while letting the other off the hook. He can suck a fuck.
This.
Libertarians for Tax and Spend
Let me simplify it for you Eric.
You want:
4.1T in income tax raises.
No reforms to SNAP.
No reforms to Medicaid.
No 150B in savings a year.
By the way. The estimated tax revenue from CBO was already proven wrong during the scoring of the 2017 tax cuts. Yet you push it as truth.
This analysis also assumes nothing else happens, just this bill, in their 10 year projection.
It also assumes lower growth from tax reductions due to how CBO scores benefits of reduced taxes, often coming in at half the growth seen due to tax cuts, latest again being the years after 2017.
Reason should just be honest and say they are demanding taxes be raised.
They can’t even be honest by saying this is 99% just an extension of current tax policy, always calling this extension a cost as of it is spending.
Medicaid and SNAP and child tax credit all ultimately benefit the wealthy because we are a consumer spending economy!! Prime age employment is higher than 2019!! The slaves are working and so giving them more money won’t mean fewer servants.
Turns out, cutting spending wasn’t as popular as originally estimated.
They can only cut certain things in the bill.
They finally started recissions, but too slow.
So the deficit created by the BBB is mostly from a revenue shortfall created by tax cuts like waiters not paying taxes on tips, and the resulting borrowing that might occur to fill in the gap. Not because Trump introduced lots of permanent baseline spending like ACA.
What should Trump have done? Let all tax cuts expire and cut medicare 30%? Enact no more tax relief until corresponding cuts to spending are made? And the democrats in the senate will just happily play along?
Oh, I’m sure the BBB will bloat government in plenty other ways. But I’m not going to make perfect the enemy of good. And it’s a little weird for anyone to take a principle stance on waiters not paying taxes on tips by pointing out to the deficit it will create, when they approve of millions of unvetted people coming to our country, which will add tons to our deficit.
A waiter not paying taxes on tips will result in immediate dividends for that person, much more than 20,000 Haitians coming to his town. Trust me.
Close. It isn’t from tax cuts but primarily an extension of the current tax code. The additive pieces like SALT and SS and tips are actually a fairly minor cut. Don’t like the SALT cuts, but also not for blindly raising income taxes on all earners.
And yeah. Reason has largely defended the 80B a year spent on illegals, far more than the effect of taxes on tips which aren’t even really paid now.
You’re right, that’s what I meant to say.
From what I understand, Trump didn’t implement a lot of actual spending programs. Nothing like the pandemic aid. Absent that, Reason is counting potential future borrowing and the interest payment as a deficit bomb. But didn’t we always borrow money anyways? Accumulate interest payments?
There’s no way Trump can cut medicare or SS. The votes and popular will just isn’t there. The democrats will roar back into power if he even cut it by 5%. And then they’ll pass a bunch of auto pilot programs that build like one car charger. What exactly is Reason’s plan to cut entitlement spending?
Eric had an article a few years back that begrudgingly admitted over 70% of the growth in spending in trumps first term l, 2017 to 2018, was for things he had no control over, primarily interest in debt and entitlement/welfare programs.
But there is a need now to claim all spending that grows is the fault of the current regime when the 47 democrats in the senate can block any major cuts. Recission and reconciliation bills can only do so much. Yet I see no criticism of Democrats in any of this.
Clinton ended with a surplus and Obama achieved 3% deficit/GDP ratio by 2014. Trump and Obama both had 2.5% GDP growth with Trump needed bigger deficits to get it. We could have had surpluses every year of Bush’s 8 years and avoided the worst of the Great Recession because Bush’s spending exacerbated the malinvestment leading up to the Global Financial Crisis. Everyone here should agree Bush’s deficits made America worse and were unnecessary.
The power of the purse sits in Congress you pathetically stupid low IQ far left brainwashed Democrat cultist
Oh, so Gingrich is the one that slashed defense spending and jacked up taxes?? Weird that Bush ran on doing the exact opposite in 2000. The anomalies under Clinton in 1999/2000 were tax revenue and defense spending…and Bush did the opposite.
Clinton never had any surpluses. Neither did California. Go ahead and google it, or look at the numbers from the Treasury. The “surplus” claim was budget trickery that doesn’t count future spending or government reducing debt via IOUs. Clinton benefitted from a bubble economy and unsustainable housing boom and if you listen to libs, him signing Glass Stegall repeal led to the financial crisis.
Obama permanently raised baseline spending with ACA. He basically owns every deficit that will ever exist after he left office. The reduction in deficit in his term was the result of the war in Iraq winding down and some level of econ recovery, which was a partial result of government bailouts.
Democrats have always increased BASELINE spending. SS, medicare, Obamacare are the biggest drivers of deficits by far. The guy who HAS to spend 2 trillion will always be in debt compared to guy who only has to spend 500 dollars. The temp shifts in deficit is largely irrelevant.
Who cares? Obama got the deficit to 3%. And Clinton did have a surplus and Bush squandered it by doing the opposite of Clinton.
A waiter not paying taxes on tips will result in immediate dividends for that person
It means that they’ll get a paycheck, albeit a small one. The way it works is that servers are paid an hourly rate (when I did it it was half of minimum wage) and taxes on tips are taken out of that hourly rate. In most cases it balances out and they get a paycheck with nothing but zeros. The vast majority of servers and restaurants lie about total tips in order to keep the taxes equal to the hourly. That’s so that they don’t owe at the end of the year. Officially not taxing tips would just mean they get a paycheck for that hourly wage, minus taxes on it of course.
Poor ignorant Liz (a thread):
The renaming of the USNS Harvey Milk is such a perfect example of a smarter right-wing that has learned how to set a narrative trap
The Navy “leaks” that they are going to rename the ship, leveraging the volume and scale of the media to spread wide this info /1
https://x.com/politicalmath/status/1930286682445652264
It’ll add up to a hell of a lot more than that once we find out where interest rates will settle. A 1% increase adds up to more than $3 trillion over a decade.
A) Feds shouldn’t be setting interest rates
B) why would they increase it by 1%?
Inflation is down. Rates should be dropping.
Powell would have already cut but for Trump’s tariff nonsense. So we are at the point that increased interest payments cancel out any tariff revenue.
The Fed can’t do anything to long rates. If they sell only short-term, then we’re setting up for more auction failures each year.
And anyone who thinks that partisan solutions will work is wrong. Partisanship created the problem.
Democrats solved the deficit twice this century already.
“will increase deficits by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years.”
So in other words, they think it will add $240billion to the deficit per year.
“The bill will reduce tax collections by an estimated $3.75 trillion over that period”
Yeah, the leftist here keep claiming that tax cuts reduce revenue, even while being shown time and again that they don’t. So unless they’re basing that $375billion per year on reduced economic activity, I’m going to take that with a giant grain of salt.
Notice too, it’s not just projections or forecasting. Nope, it will increase by $2.4 trillion.
Simple solution, prohibit government coercion.
Eliminate the department of education.
Eliminate the department of labor.
Eliminate the department of commerce.
Wait a year and see what happens.
Then cut three more departments.
Change behind the sofa cushions. To significantly reduce the deficits, we need to replace Social Security with a means-tested welfare program for the elderly; reduce fraud and waste in Medicare and Medicaid; and reduce the military budget. Anyone not willing to address these is not serious about reducing the deficit and slowing the growth of the debt.
Not going to happen.
I agree. The profligate deficit spending will continue until our system collapses and we are plunged into a depression that will make the Great Depression look like a cloudy day.
So wealth transfer? Those who pay the most in get nothing out? That will go over well. Program is ready highly progressive.
Keep what I’ve paid in but let me opt out my last 20 years. You dont get 12.4% of my income while i get nothing. Pure socialism. Already giving up a shit ton due to forced takings.
One way or another, more affluent recipients are going to get fucked. If they insist on getting every dollar they’re owed, those dollars will end up being nearly worthless. The wealth does not exist for full benefits to be paid to everyone. The wealth transfer has already happened. The only question now is how to mitigate the damage from ending Social Security.
We have a consumer spending economy! Wealthy can invest in the stocks like Walmart or if they are a small business owner like a restaurant owner then they benefit from more consumer spending if they serve quality food. The majority of Americans live paycheck to which means when lower class get tax cuts they have more disposable income. Parents with babies generally spend more on diapers and formula and parents with older children generally spend more money on chicken fingers and lemonade. Basically when you look out your window and see people driving around 90% of the activity is either making money to buy chicken fingers or going to get chicken fingers…it’s all about chicken fingers.
You know Reason isn’t Libertarian anymore when they start cursing ….
“The bill will reduce tax collections by an estimated $3.75 trillion over that period, while reducing government spending by an estimated $1.3 trillion.”
Oh yeah; They’re too busy crying about new taxes on imports to want to support LOWER domestic taxes and LOWER gov spending.
Or more likely than not. They just want to HATE Trump because they’ve become nothing but another leftard rag of the D.C. Democrats indoctrination press.
Oh yeah; They’re too busy crying about new taxes on imports to want to support LOWER domestic taxes and LOWER gov spending.
What the fuck is wrong with your brain? Taxes on imports are paid by Americans. They’re domestic taxes. YOU PAY THEM YOU DUMB FUCK! You’re pleading on your knees saying “Tax me more Mister Trump! Please! I don’t pay enough to the federal government! Tax me more!” and don’t even know it. Jesus you’re fucking broken.
Income taxes are paid for by American workers you retarded fuck. The income taxes you, Eric, and kmw pine for are 2x the estimates from tariffs.
I can at least mitigate my purchases of cheap Chinese shit dumbfuck. And maybe it helps mitigate the theft and other bad markets costs you so enjoy ignoring. Meanwhile regulations are dropping to reduce prices retard. Why we keep seeing inflation reducing.
What the fuck is wrong with the logics part of your fucking brain?
“Tariffs = Domestic Taxes … NOT Import Taxes!”, sarc and his leftard tribe of BS.
Can someone who speaks Retard translate that into English?
Yes. It’s Retarded alright and it’s exactly a paraphrase of what you just said.
“Taxes on imports are … They’re domestic taxes.”
“I don’t pay enough to the federal government! Tax me more!”
Isn’t complaining (wrongly) about tax cuts without spending cuts and saying that they should expire fundamentally the same thing?
That’s one of the things that’s already in my long list of stuff Trump defenders have in common with the leftists they hate. Dumbass Trump defenders think that taxes on imports somehow don’t effect them, and dumbass lefttards think that taxes on income only effect the rich. Either way they’re both trying to extract from some other that they don’t feel is themselves. Exact same mentality.
You’ve been advocating for increased income taxes for a year now dumbass.
And consumers look at prices, not taxes on imports. What’s the CPI and PPI looking like again dumdum? The regulatory costs your idol Biden added are far more costly. Weird what your priorities are. Things that add the most cost you dont give two shits about. Income tax increases you and.
So fucking broken.
Nope, the inflation was from supply chain disruptions due to Covid and the inflationary period ended in 2023. Had Kamala won Powell would have already made another cut. The only positive from Trump’s tariffs is that the uncertainty lowered the oil price which has put more pressure on Russia. But keep in mind America is the biggest energy producer by far and so the $70/ barrel price was great for America.
“think that taxes on imports somehow don’t effect them”
They don’t if they buy products made in the USA.
Course you wouldn’t know that because you don’t think. You just get learnt and parrot leftard BS propaganda that tells you that “Tariffs = Domestic Taxes” which is just a flat out LIE.
Imagine what the ten year deficit would be if Harris had won the election.
Kamala would have had 3% deficit/GDP ratio by 2026 because Powell would be cutting Fed rates and she would have increased the top rate to 39.6% in 2026. Voting for Trump again is another own goal like voting for Bush in 2000.
About the same.
Except Clinton had a surplus and Obama had it at 3% by 2014. Biden inherited 15% and was on track to have it at 3% by 2026 on the same timeline as Obama.
It’s amazing how you Democrat praisers likes to use the [D] – trifecta TRIPLING the Deficit as the only baseline for comparison and then manage to ignore the [R] Congress getting their run-away spending back under controlling.
Hey man… I borrowed 3-TIMES more than the last administration but its okay cause I only borrowed 2-TIMES as much this year because Republicans in Congress wouldn’t pass my 3-TIMES more bills.
And then manage to pull a magical rabbit out of your *sses by saying Clinton ran a Surplus while the Debt just kept increasing.
GDP kept increasing. Then under Bush we had what amounted to a lost decade on the revenue side and a weak decade on the growth side. I’m sorry Republicans screwed everything up but Reagan was a great president and so you have that.
Are you retarded? There would be increased spending, not reduced; increased taxes (and lower overall economic activity to tax) and in all likelihood more tariffs for protectionist reasons. Name one way Harris or any Democrat would or has ever tried to keep the deficit under control without Republican arm twisting.
If history is any teller and Harris got a [D] Congress.
3-TIMES as much as we’ll ever see with Trump and [R]’s.
Not hard, history tells us that the most deficit reduction occurs under a Democratic President when the Republicans control at least one House of the Congress. So, the deficit would be reduced under a President Harris.
…because it takes an [R] to STOP the [D]’s spending.
Summarized to, “If Republicans don’t STOP us [D]’s then it’s all their fault!”
It amazes me this is even a questioned position.
All Democrats do while in office is PITCH MORE SPENDING.
Over and over and over and over again.
As-if no-one should be able to decode MORE Spending pitches will equate to MORE debt.
Wrong analysis. Republicans are deficit hawks when Democrats control the Presidency and drunken sailors when their own party controls the White House. Democrats on the other hand spend more time worrying about the effects of cuts than in speaking out about Republican spending.
Didn’t our man in Argentina also spend a lot of money in his first couple years in order to set the stage for longer term recovery?
You mean the guy that ran with a chainsaw in his hand? No. Argentina actually elected a fiscally conservative libertarian. Some day, we should be so lucky.
While tax cuts are a useful tool in addressing some economic problems they are now being overused. What is worse is the dangerous debt spiral set in motion by the 2017 TCJA. The 2017 cuts required deficit spending and it also had an expiration date of 2025. Now to preserve those cut additional deficit spending is needed and the bill to do this now has additional cuts set to expire in 2029. So additional debt will be needed to preserve them in late 2029. The 2017 TCJA was unnecessary and provide little in real economic value, it has also set up a spiral of increasing debt. It needs to stop now and the OBBB needs to be voted down.
The Point & Case established to my last reply to you.
Pitching STEAL (tax) MORE so [D]’s can Spend MORE.
https://reason.com/2025/06/04/the-big-beautiful-bill-will-add-2-4-trillion-to-the-deficit/?comments=true#comment-11077146
CBO scoring of tax legislation projecting ten year cost/savings is pretty much useless as it cannot take into account the effects of future legislation. In addition, the CBO must assume all of the bill’s projected “benefits,” no matter how outlandish, will, in fact, be realized over time (which history shows is generally not the case).
Tax legislation also tends to be front loaded – the “savings” being realized in the early years and costs piling up in the latter years. The ACA was a great example of the above. Revenue generation was front loaded with taxes/penalties starting four years before any benefits of the legislation began. When scoring the ACA, the CBO also had to assume that the previously planned reduction in Medicare provider reimbursement rates (generating $400B in “savings” over ten years) would go into effect. The reality was the previously scheduled reimbursement rates reductions had already been put off year after year by Congress via passing annual “Doc Fix” bills delaying the reductions. Congress ultimately repealed the Medicare reimbursement reduction legislation and the ACA, which the CBO scored as neutral, ended up costing trillions.
Not raising taxes doesn’t increase the deficit. Spending to much does and this bill CUTS spending. Not enough though.
Larry Kudlow worked through the math and found approximately 4 trillion reduction. Because of the way the CBO and democrats are not adding the revenue gained from the first tax cuts being renewed. There’s no additional drop in revenue for renewing the cuts already in place.
If the BBB actually removed Biden’s abhorrent IRA spending on green crap deal projects then 1.2 trillion would be saved immediately. Get that done Senate.