
Donald Trump faces uphill battle to sell tax cuts amid debt fears
Agencies
President Donald Trump faces the challenge of convincing Republican senators, global investors, voters and even Elon Musk that he won't bury the federal government in debt with his multitrillion-dollar tax breaks package.
The response so far from financial markets has been skeptical as Trump seems unable to trim deficits as promised.
'All of this rhetoric about cutting trillions of dollars of spending has come to nothing — and the tax bill codifies that,' said Michael Strain, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank. 'There is a level of concern about the competence of Congress and this administration and that makes adding a whole bunch of money to the deficit riskier.'
The White House has viciously lashed out at anyone who has voiced concern about the debt snowballing under Trump, even though it did exactly that in his first term after his 2017 tax cuts.White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt opened her briefing Thursday by saying she wanted 'to debunk some false claims' about his tax cuts.
Leavitt said the 'blatantly wrong claim that the 'One, Big, Beautiful Bill' increases the deficit is based on the Congressional Budget Office and other scorekeepers who use shoddy assumptions and have historically been terrible at forecasting across Democrat and Republican administrations alike.' House Speaker Mike Johnson piled onto Congress' number crunchers on Sunday, telling NBC's 'Meet the Press,' 'The CBO sometimes gets projections correct, but they're always off, every single time, when they project economic growth.
They always underestimate the growth that will be brought about by tax cuts and reduction in regulations.' But Trump himself has suggested that the lack of sufficient spending cuts to offset his tax reductions came out of the need to hold the Republican congressional coalition together.'We have to get a lot of votes,' Trump said last week.
'We can't be cutting.' That has left the administration betting on the hope that economic growth can do the trick, a belief that few outside of Trump's orbit think is viable.
Most economists consider the non-partisan CBO to be the foundational standard for assessing policies, though it does not produce cost estimates for actions taken by the executive branch such as Trump's unilateral tariffs.
Tech billionaire Musk, who was until recently part of Trump's inner sanctum as the leader of the Department of Government Efficiency, told CBS News: 'I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not just decreases it, and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing.'Federal debt keeps rising The tax and spending cuts that passed the House last month would add more than $5 trillion to the national debt in the coming decade if all of them are allowed to continue, according to the Committee for a Responsible Financial Budget, a fiscal watchdog group.
To make the bill's price tag appear lower, various parts of the legislation are set to expire. This same tactic was used with Trump's 2017 tax cuts and it set up this year's dilemma, in which many of the tax cuts in that earlier package will sunset next year unless Congress renews them.
But the debt is a much bigger problem now than it was eight years ago. Investors are demanding the government pay a higher premium to keep borrowing as the total debt has crossed $36.1 trillion. The interest rate on a 10-year Treasury Note is around 4.5%, up dramatically from the roughly 2.5% rate being charged when the 2017 tax cuts became law.
The White House Council of Economic Advisers argues that its policies will unleash so much rapid growth that the annual budget deficits will shrink in size relative to the overall economy, putting the U.S. government on a fiscally sustainable path.
The council argues the economy would expand over the next four years at an annual average of about 3.2%, instead of the Congressional Budget Office's expected 1.9%, and as many as 7.4 million jobs would be created or saved.Council chair Stephen Miran told reporters that when the growth being forecast by the White House is coupled with expected revenues from tariffs, the expected budget deficits will fall.
The tax cuts will increase the supply of money for investment, the supply of workers and the supply of domestically produced goods — all of which, by Miran's logic, would cause faster growth without creating new inflationary pressures.
'I do want to assure everyone that the deficit is a very significant concern for this administration,' Miran said.
White House budget director Russell Vought told reporters the idea that the bill is 'in any way harmful to debt and deficits is fundamentally untrue.'Most outside economists expect additional debt would keep interest rates higher and slow overall economic growth as the cost of borrowing for homes, cars, businesses and even college educations would increase.
'This just adds to the problem future policymakers are going to face,' said Brendan Duke, a former Biden administration aide now at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank. Duke said that with the tax cuts in the bill set to expire in 2028, lawmakers would be 'dealing with Social Security, Medicare and expiring tax cuts at the same time.' Kent Smetters, faculty director of the Penn Wharton Budget Model, said the growth projections from Trump's economic team are 'a work of fiction.' He said the bill would lead some workers to choose to work fewer hours in order to qualify for Medicaid.
'I don't know of any serious forecaster that has meaningfully raised their growth forecast because of this legislation,' said Harvard University professor Jason Furman, who was the Council of Economic Advisers chair under the Obama administration.
'These are mostly not growth- and competitiveness-oriented tax cuts. And, in fact, the higher long-term interest rates will go the other way and hurt growth.' The White House's inability so far to calm deficit concerns is stirring up political blowback for Trump as the tax and spending cuts approved by the House now move to the Senate. Republican Sens. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Rand Paul of Kentucky have both expressed concerns about the likely deficit increases, with Johnson saying there are enough senators to stall the bill until deficits are addressed.
'I think we have enough to stop the process until the president gets serious about the spending reduction and reducing the deficit,' Johnson said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
De-escalating to escalate: Ceasefire is no longer on the horizon in Ukraine
For a while now, the Ukraine-Russia war has been compared by various pundits to the Korean War of the early 1950s. That conflict, which split the Korean Peninsula in two, ended without a clear victor. Hostilities ceased with the signing of an armistice in 1953, but no formal peace treaty ever followed. The Korean Peninsula remains technically at war, suspended in an uneasy truce and still divided along the 38th parallel. Could Ukraine be heading toward a similar outcome? In many respects, today's deadlock echoes the dynamics of the Korean War. North Korea relied on support from China and the Soviet Union, while South Korea was backed by a United States-led coalition. Following a series of offensives and counteroffensives, the conflict slowed down to a war of attrition, which dragged out the negotiation of a ceasefire for two years. Today, Russia, bolstered by China's backing, is fighting in Ukraine, whose army is sustained by its Western allies. In the past year, the conflict has slowed down, and the map of the front line no longer sees dramatic changes. But unlike in the Korean War, the prospects of a ceasefire here appear slim after three years of fighting. The diplomatic and pressure politics offensive by US President Donald Trump to force the two sides to put down their weapons has borne no fruit. Both sides talk about ceasefire, but act as if they want the war to continue. On Sunday, a fresh dose of fuel was poured into the fire. Ukraine launched a series of precise, destructive, and strategically painful strikes against Russian military airfields. The damage inflicted reportedly amounts to $7bn. Forty-one aircraft — about one-third of Russia's strategic bomber fleet — were hit. In parallel, two bridges collapsed in two Russian regions bordering Ukraine, derailing trains; the local authorities said they suspected sabotage. A week before that, Russia sent a swarm of more than 900 drones and dozens of missiles – killing at least 16 civilians, including three children – across Ukraine. On Monday, the Russian army sent a barrage of missiles deep into Ukrainian territory, hitting a training camp for soldiers and killing 12. The timing of these attacks appears to have been deliberately chosen. They came just ahead of the latest stage of peace talks — raising questions about whether such gestures are intended to strengthen each side's negotiating position or derail the process altogether. It is not the first time that the two sides have stepped up attacks when talks have come up. Last year, precisely as Moscow and Kyiv were about to start negotiating a partial ceasefire, Ukraine launched its incursion into Kursk. The efforts to bring the two sides to the negotiating table fell through. This time, Russia chose to downplay Sunday's explosions deep inside its territory. The Russian Defence Ministry grudgingly acknowledged that 'several units of aircraft caught fire', but made no overt threat of retaliation. Rather than lodging a formal protest, Russian delegation members proceeded to Istanbul for negotiations with their Ukrainian counterparts. On Monday, the two sides met and managed to reach agreement on two issues: a prisoner exchange of at least 1,000 soldiers each, and the possible return of 10 abducted Ukrainian children by the Russian authorities. There was no progress on a ceasefire agreement. It was clear that neither Moscow nor Kyiv was ready for serious talks. The leadership in both capitals has its reasons for avoiding the order to put down weapons. Russian President Vladimir Putin has shown, time and again, that he will not allow others to dictate terms to him; he prefers to set them himself. As the principal architect of this war, he is getting everything he wants: expanding political influence, territorial gains, and a drawn-out conflict that bolsters his image at home. He seems ready to torment Ukraine for as long as either it — or he — survives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, for his part, is not the kind of man to yield or retreat. Setting aside his courage and stubbornness, it's clear the war has given him what peace never could: enduring popularity, a steady flow of international aid, and a firm grip on power. If Ukrainians see a truce concluded with Russia as a form of capitulation, Zelensky's presidency might not last months — perhaps not even weeks. That danger weighs heavy on him. Meanwhile, the West seems willing to supply resources to continue the war effort, which is giving Kyiv more confidence. On June 3, the Ukrainian army struck the Kerch Bridge in Crimea — a structure constructed by Russia after its illegal annexation of the Ukrainian peninsula. The bridge is both a symbol of Putin's imperial ambition and a strategic artery linking Russia to occupied Crimea. An attack on it is certain to provoke a response. What form that response will take, we will likely know very soon. Ukraine's gamble on Western backing has raised the stakes. The war may be entering a new, more dangerous phase: one defined not by front lines, but by symbolic attacks and overwhelming retaliation. For many ordinary Ukrainians, the fragile hope that the fighting can come to a stop has given way to a grim sense that the war will drag on for months, if not years. Among us are optimists who firmly believe that Ukraine will ultimately prevail. At the other end are pessimists who argue that defeating an enemy vastly superior in size, military power, and enormous revenues from hydrocarbon sales is simply impossible. Politics and war are not about fairness, justice, or morality. War feeds on human lives. It endures as long as leaders turn a blind eye to the suffering of their people. At present, there is no sign that the Ukrainian and Russian leaderships are ready for compromise. And that does not bode well for the ordinary Ukrainians who bear the brunt of this war. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.


Al Jazeera
4 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
What's in Trump's ‘big, beautiful' budget bill?
NewsFeed What's in Trump's 'big, beautiful' budget bill? What's in Trump's 'big, beautiful' budget bill? Al Jazeera's Heidi Zhou-Castro breaks down the bill that Donald Trump claims will usher in an economic golden age, whilst others warn it could add significantly to the national debt.


Qatar Tribune
19 hours ago
- Qatar Tribune
Oil market braces for glut amid weak demand and rising supply
Agencies Worries over the health of the global economy amid escalating trade protectionism together with an accelerated unwind of OPEC+ output cuts pushed Brent crude to a four-year low of $60/bbl in early May – though prices have risen off their lows. Responding to the weaker economic outlook, the IEA downgraded its 2025 oil demand growth projections to a multi-year low of 740 kb/d, which, in the context of faster OPEC+ supply increases and rising non-OPEC flows, risks a supply glut over the medium term. This is the central downside risk to oil prices, signaled by weaker oil futures and a spate of downward price revisions by forecasting agencies. Providing some upside potential is the prospect of supply disruptions from more stringent US sanctions on Iran and Venezuela or a de-escalation in the global trade tariff conflict. Largely unchanged in Q1,benchmark oil prices have dropped precipitously so far in Q2, after President Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariff deluge on US trading partners and OPEC+'s decision to accelerate the pace of its supply cut unwinding schedule. Brent fell to four-year lows in April, shedding 15 percent by the close of the month, the steepest monthly decline since November 2021, and then dropped further to $60.2 earlier in May. The marker has since struggled to break out of the low-to-mid-60s range, though President Trump's decision to slash tariffs on Chinese goods for 90-days did lift prices marginally. Prices are now ranging around $64/bbl, caught between bearish sentiment linked to unexpected crude inventory builds in the US and a third consecutive month of schedule-busting OPEC+ supply hikes on the one hand, and falling US oil rig counts and pessimism surrounding the prospects for a new Iran nuclear deal that would satisfy both the US and Iran on the other. President Trump's 'maximum pressure' strategy vis-à-vis Iran and threat to impose even more stringent sanctions on the country's energy exports has been one of the few bullish impulses for oil prices and could puncture the negative sentiment that has befallen the oil market in 2025. The pessimism has also been evident in the formation of a curious anomaly in Brent's forward curve: while the front end of the curve has been 'backwardated'(near-term prices higher than prices in the future), later month prices have shifted into a contango structure that see prices rising over earlier months. This so-called 'smiley' structure is fairly unprecedented and appears to signal that markets believe summer oil demand will be healthy enough to keep prices firm in the short term but insufficient to prevent a surplus and stock builds later on. And this is due to the potent combination of trade-tariff linked macroeconomic weakness and accelerating OPEC+ supply especially. Meanwhile, the bullish speculator positions that had built up in Q1 quickly reversed in Q2 amid the spike in risk and uncertainty that followed April's tariff onslaught and OPEC+'s accelerated resupply timetable. 'Net length', the difference between the number of 'long' (betting on prices rising) and 'short' contracts (positions staked on prices falling) declined by 155,838 lots w/w in the week-ending 4 April, the sharpest drop in the available data. Net length has recovered slightly more recently as hedge funds view some upside risk in US-Iran nuclear talks failing to progress. Near-term oil demand growth was revised sharply lower following the escalation of the trade war between the US and China. The International Energy Agency (IEA), taking its cue from the earlier downgrade by the IMF to global GDP growth in 2025 (and beyond), has lowered its forecast for oil demand growth this year to 740 kb/d and 760 kb/d in 2026. This is the weakest rate of growth since pandemic-affected 2020. The IEA pegs total oil demand at 105 mb/d in 2025. OPEC lowered its demand growth forecast by a less severe 150 kb/d to 1.3 mb/d for both years. OPEC cites higher petrochemical production, solid road and air mobility as well as robust industrial activity in support of its more bullish oil demand growth projection compared to peers. This would also not be incongruous with its recent policy of fast-tracking the unwinding of members' voluntary supply cuts. Despite broad demand-side worries, OPEC+ surprised the markets by accelerating the pace of unwind of 2.2 mb/d in voluntary output cuts by the 'OPEC-8' (which includes Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, UAE, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Algeria, and Oman) from 131 kb/d per month from April to 411kb/d in May and then again for both June and July. The move was ostensibly framed as a bid to 'punish' serial quota violators, such as Kazakhstan and Iraq, for failing to cut production in line with their quota obligations and compensatory cut promises. The Saudis hoped the fiscal discomfort of freefalling oil prices would bring about the discipline that has so far been absent among these overproducing members. Part of the deal was that overproducing members would in good faith compensate for their non-compliance by cutting production according to a mutually agreed timetable thereby offsetting some of the supply that was about to be released. According to OPEC secondary sources, the average aggregate volume of OPEC-8 compensatory cuts required as 'payback' for members' overproduction from January 2024 to March 2025 is 305 kb/d, which would have easily offset the 131 kb/d of monthly incremental production OPEC-8 had originally planned. This would have resulted in a de-facto output cut. That said, in April, the first month in the schedule that called for higher OPEC-8 supply, monthly supply gains from the group, at 23 kb/d, fell far short of the 131 kb/d that had been planned. Only four of the eight producers – Saudi, the UAE, Oman and Russia – increased production. Despite lowering output in April, Kazakhstan and Iraq were once again producing well above their respective quotas never mind honoring compensatory cut pledges. Declaration of Cooperation(DOC) production (excluding quota-exempt Iran, Libya, Venezuela and Mexico) fell slightly in April to 30.0 mb/d (-17 kb/d). In the US, crude production hovered near record levels of 13.4 mb/d by mid-May, as per Energy Information Administration (EIA) data. (Chart 6).Following the plunge in oil prices and the downturn in global macroeconomic prospects, the EIA lowered its forecast for US crude oil output growth this year by nearly half to 208kb/d, the slowest rate of expansion since 2021.