
Are the debt limit's days numbered? Trump and Warren hope so.
Advertisement
Their reasons for targeting a mechanism that has become outdated in the hyper-partisan political environment are different, of course.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
For Trump, opposition by some congressional Republicans to raising the $36.1 trillion debt limit is an obstacle to passing his massive tax and budget cut legislation. For Warren, even though axing the debt limit would help Republicans in the short-term, it would benefit Democrats the next time they hold the presidency.
'The time to do it is now when it's not a huge negotiating issue,' Warren told the Globe, noting there was unlikely to be
any Republican
brinkmanship over raising the limit
Advertisement
But despite the backing of Trump and Warren, partisan politics still promise to make it difficult to get rid of the debt limit. A White House spokesperson said there was no additional comment beyond Trump's June 4 post.
'It's the only leverage we've got,' said Senator Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican who wants to significantly reduce federal spending. Another GOP deficit hawk, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, has said he won't vote for the Senate version of the tax bill in part
because it includes a $5 trillion debt limit increase.
'That's a terrible idea,' he responded when asked about scrapping the debt limit. 'Will it be called the Trump/Elizabeth Warren bill?'
On the other side of the aisle, some Democrats are loathe to help Trump out of a jam on legislation they strongly oppose and believe will hurt average Americans.
'I think we should ultimately get rid of it,' said
The debt limit dates back to 1917. For decades, it was raised routinely and without controversy every year or two as an extension of the budget process to allow the federal government to continue borrowing. That changed in 2011, when Tea Party Republicans withheld their support until the last minute during the Obama administration.
Advertisement
The showdown led Standard & Poor's to downgrade the nation's AAA credit rating for the first time. There were standoffs again in 2013 and 2023, which occurred
with Republican control of at least one chamber of Congress and a Democratic president in the White House.
After the 2023 fight, another leading credit rating firm,
The United States is a global outlier in having a debt limit. Denmark is the only other advanced economy with one and it is set so high that it rarely needs to be raised. Critics say the US debt limit is unnecessary because it authorizes borrowing for spending Congress has already approved and hasn't prevented US debt from skyrocketing over the past decade.
'We've had it for a little over 100 years or so and it's produced no fiscal prudence, so I think we should give up on that theory,' said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the former director of the Congressional Budget Office and president of the conservative-leaning American Action Forum think tank.
But Rachel Snyderman, managing director of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, said there's still a value to the debt limit and it should be reformed rather than scrapped. She pointed to a bipartisan House bill,
Advertisement
'It's clear that our current debt limit process does not work,' she said, noting the fast-rising debt. 'However, I do think that we have to ask the question whether eliminating the debt limit and having really no check on that number would be the most responsible action for the world's largest economy and holder of the most stable investment asset.'
Snyderman noted that the third leading credit rating firm,
But Richard Francis, Fitch Ratings' lead analyst for the United States, said the elimination of the debt limit would be 'somewhat positive' because it would take the risk of a default off the table.
That's the point that Warren has been trying to make.
'If we ever default, we can never undo the damage,' she said. 'We can never go back to being a country that always honors its promises.'
Warren wouldn't say what kind of discussions she's had with her colleagues about eliminating the debt limit. But she thinks Republicans might support it since most of them will be voting for a huge debt limit increase in the in the tax bill.
Senator Jim Justice, a West Virginia Republican, said he'd be amenable to scrapping the debt limit.
'You wouldn't have that loom over your head,' he said. 'I mean, for God sakes, don't we have enough things to contend with?'
But Senator John Curtis, a Utah Republican, demonstrated the complexity of the issue with the debt continuing to climb.
Advertisement
'The debt limit has not had any impact on reducing the deficit, so from that perspective, I don't see a lot of value to it,' he said. 'But I'm also hesitant to let it go because it's all we've got.'
Jim Puzzanghera can be reached at
Hashtags

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

Politico
20 minutes ago
- Politico
‘He's a snake': Musk jabs at Trump adviser who fueled messy presidential breakup
Elon Musk may have stopped sparring with President Donald Trump online, but the former presidential adviser and megabacker isn't done publicly sniping at members of Trump's administration. The former DOGE chief slammed Sergio Gor, a top Trump adviser who played a role in his split with the president, bashing him as a 'snake' late Wednesday night. 'He's a snake,' Musk wrote on his social media platform X, replying to a New York Post story reporting that Gor, who serves as the director of the White House personnel office, has not himself been properly vetted. According to the Post, Gor has not submitted the requisite paperwork to obtain a permanent security clearance, even as he presides over the screening process for thousands of White House staffers. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Gor. Tensions between the two advisers had long simmered, with Musk refusing to work with Gorafter a March Cabinet meeting in which the billionaire clashed with other Cabinet members over cuts to their agencies, prompting Trump to clarify that agency heads had authority over their departments — not DOGE's Musk. But the situation bubbled over when Gor helped facilitate the termination of Jared Isaacman's nomination for NASA head — a pick Musk had pushed. The decision to pull Isaacman's nomination appeared to be the last straw for Musk, who shortly thereafter launched a social media spree attacking the president and the 'Big Beautiful Bill' he was drumming up support to push through Congress. At the time, Trump pointed to his choice to pull Isaacman's nomination as a motivating factor in Musk's decision to lash out against the president. The fight, which came on the heels of Musk's slated departure from his government duties, marked the nail in the coffin for the relationship between the president and his one-time 'first buddy.' But tensions seem to have calmed between the two men after their massive online meltdown, with Trump saying he had 'no hard feelings' for his former ally, and Musk issuing an apology on X, saying he 'went too far' in his attacks on the president during their fight. Trump, in particular, had sought to downplay the spat, as the White House worried that the public squabble was drawing attention away from administration priorities.


Time Magazine
21 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
The Issues With Calling for a Regime Change in Iran
Some have called for a regime change in Iran. Though a change is unlikely to happen by itself, should President Donald Trump push for one, he would be making a grave mistake. It is not the first time that foreign powers have imagined Iran as a crumbling house—one that only needs a gentle push, or a series of airstrikes, before it falls into new hands. This was the fantasy in 1953, when the CIA and the British intelligence overthrew Mohammad Mossadegh, Iran's prime minister who had nationalized the country's oil, and delivered Iran to Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's autocratic rule. And this was also the fantasy in the 1980s, when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran with military and economic support from the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Israel, who believed the newly revolutionary Iran would collapse in months. It was the fallacy in 2003, when the George W. Bush Administration imagined the ' axis of evil ' could be undone through further isolation of Iran. Now, the myth of a seamless regime change in Iran has been resurrected. 'As we achieve our objective we are also clearing the path for you to achieve your freedom,' Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a video address to the Iranian people. The shape of Israel's effort is clear: sabotage operations, assassinations, and strikes. President Trump's response has varied widely. First, he sought out a renewed nuclear deal with Iran. Later, he demanded its ' unconditional surrender,' posting about the possibility of killing Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran. He moved American refueling jets closer to Europe and maintained a degree of ambiguity about the U.S. military's commitment to Israel. Since, he has come to support Israel's attacks on Iran. But Iran is not Syria, Libya, or Iraq. If President Trump joins the war on Iran and commits the United States to removing the Iranian regime, the results will likely be more catastrophic than the 2003 war on Iraq, which killed more than 1.2 million people, displaced more than nine million Iraqis, contributed to the emergence of the Islamic State, and cost the United States about $3 trillion. America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan also contributed significantly to the squandering of its unipolar moment and setting off the decline of the American century. American analysts often underestimate the strength of the Iranian state, which is structured for survival. The Iranian military has a dual architecture designed to resist coups and invasions: Artesh, the regular armed forces of around 420,000 men across ground, naval, air, and air-defense forces, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), an elite, ideologically driven military with roughly 190,000 personnel across ground, naval, and air branches. Beyond them is the Basij, a vast paramilitary network with hundreds of thousands of members embedded in every corner of Iranian society—in the streets, in neighborhoods, in schools, and mosques. They aren't just loyalists of Ayatollah but woven into a deeper idea of the state and committed to the independence of Iran. Despite Israel's extensive and quite successful campaign of assassinations targeting senior IRGC commanders, the core of this group has not been hollowed out but hardened. A younger generation of more ideologically rigid commanders has emerged. They came of age in a regional military power, see themselves as the stewards of an embattled regional order, and push for more aggressive postures toward the United States and Israel—stances their more pragmatic predecessors, shaped by the war with Iraq, often resisted. This new generation of Iranian military commanders has also been battle-hardened in close-quarter conflict in Syria and understand how wars of state collapse can unfold. If this war morphs into a war of state collapse—and it very well might—then what comes next will likely not be surrender. The Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force, which helped organize a patchwork of militias that bled American forces in Iraq for years, is well-positioned to do the same again. These networks—Lebanese, Iraqi, Syrian, Afghan—were built precisely to extend deterrence and sow instability in the event of direct conflict. Israel has deeply weakened Iran's axis of non-state actors in the region, but Tehran retains the ability to foment militias to fight against American and Israeli troops and interests. Bombing campaigns could significantly destroy military and civilian infrastructure in Iran but to replace the Iranian regime, President Trump has to be prepared to fight not just a standing army but a system with decades of experience in asymmetric warfare. Yesterday, Trump posted on social media that the U.S. will not kill Iran's Supreme Leader 'at least not for now.' But Iran is not governed by a single man or clique that can be decapitated. The Iranian state is a competitive authoritarian system with institutions that have evolved over a century. Even amid crises, the system generates new leaders, factions, and power centers. Even the deaths of some influential figures would not bring the system down—it would renew it. And Iran remembers: the invasions, the coups, the chemical attacks, and the long war of attrition it fought in the 1980s when the West bet on Saddam Hussain. At that time, the Islamic Republic was relatively young, with comparatively miniscule military resources, almost no idea of governance, and no battlefield experience. Saddam owned the skies. He wielded nerve gas. He had Western and Soviet support. Still, Iran did not fall. The war with Iraq scarred Iran, however it taught the country that survival does not require parity but endurance. In the decades since, the Iranian state has reorganized itself not for peace, but for siege. Its military doctrine is not built for conquest but for resistance. Iran won't simply absorb aerial bombardment or shrug off sabotage. Moreover, Iran is a civilizational state. The identity binding many Iranians is not limited to a flag or a government but rooted in a deeper historical memory stretching back through empire, invasion, forced partitions, foreign coups, and colonial interludes. To be sure, the Islamic Republic has inflicted great suffering upon the Iranian people and enraged many Iranian protestors, but to mistake that rage for a longing to be 'liberated' by foreign forces is to repeat the catastrophic delusions that defined the Iraq war in 2003. Iran's geography and demography will also affect the course of this conflict. Iran is four and a half times the size of Germany, with 92 million people. There are millions of Iranians who want an end to the Islamic Republic, but there are also millions who would fight any foreign attempt to decide what replaces it. The talk of regime change was no doubt intensified by the success of Israel's extensive intelligence campaign against Iran, leading to assassinations of Iran's military leaders and nuclear scientists, sabotage of defense facilities, and aerial dominance. But these operations, while exposing Iran's weakness and reducing its deterrence, also eviscerated the space for diplomacy and increased the possibility of violence and paranoia within the Iranian state. Some argue that Iran, under pressure and humiliated by foreign penetration, may be more willing to strike a deal and abandon its nuclear ambitions. But many in Iran's security establishment are likely to believe that only nuclear deterrence can ensure regime survival. The lesson they are likely to draw from the past two decades is that surrender does not lead to safety. Saddam gave up his weapons. He was invaded. Gaddafi gave up his nuclear program. He was overthrown. In this view, the path to survival for Iran is not disarmament—it is deterrence. Iran may not yet be racing to build a nuclear bomb, but if the regime comes to believe that collapse is inevitable without it, it may sprint to make sure no one else dares to come for them again. The irony is that the most ardent proponents of regime change in Iran may be accelerating the very nuclear program they claim to fear.


CNN
23 minutes ago
- CNN
India's hi-tech ambitions get a boost from Apple and U.S. tariffs
Even before Trump's latest trade war, India was gunning for a greater slice, not only of the smartphone industry, but the entire supply chain, hoping to lure more international businesses away from China. Now, with Apple announcing it will build all US-bound smartphones in India, and US tariffs potentially handing it a competitive advantage, India is seeing new momentum. CNN's Clare Sebastian visits a city outside Delhi that has been transformed by India's hi-tech ambitions.