Trump's $30 trillion debt disaster
Meanwhile, the CBO's spending baseline totals about $89 trillion over the same 10-year period ending in fiscal 2035. So either Trump is looking to add a staggering $34 trillion to the nation's already towering $36 trillion of existing debt or he means to slash spending by truly massive amounts.
Well, it's obviously not the latter. The president has
increase spending for defense, security assistance to other countries, homeland security, law enforcement, and border control, which under current policy would amount to about $12 trillion over 10 years. And whether they acknowledge it or not, Trump administration staffers can't cut net interest expense or legally protected military and civilian employee pensions, which will cost upward of $16 trillion over the next decade.
Advertisement
The problem, of course, is that these programs alone add up to $70 trillion, or nearly 80 percent of the CBO spending baseline. So even if the Trump administration massively slashed the rest of the federal government — including Health and Human Services, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the departments of Labor, Interior, Energy, and Transportation — the red ink would still total far more than $30 trillion through 2035.
Either way you cut it, this amounts to plunging into a paroxysm of fiscal madness. Yet the alternative routes often advocated by MAGA partisans — taking the ax to fraud and waste or spurring accelerated economic growth with tax cuts and deregulation — simply won't make a dent in the Brobdingnagian magnitude of the nation's debt spiral.
And I do mean massive. The CBO never says the quiet part out loud, but its current long-term outlook has the public debt hitting 166 percent of the country's gross domestic product by mid-century. The quiet part it doesn't publish is that 166 percent of GDP is equal to a stunning $150 trillion of public debt.
Needless to say, long before the debt hits this staggering figure, the whole financial system would implode. Every remnant of America as we know it would go down the tubes.
So as helpful as the Department of Government Efficiency campaign against waste and inefficiency might be, it is virtually irrelevant when it comes to staunching a public debt that is hurtling fast toward catastrophe.
I recently recommended a plan to the DOGE commission in my book 'How to Cut $2 Trillion' that would save $85 billion per year in agency staff and overhead costs. But to get there, one would need to embrace a strict libertarian policy menu calling for the elimination of 16 agencies entirely, including the FBI, Education Department, USAID, and the national endowments for arts, humanities, and democracy; shrink another nine departments by 50 percent, including the EPA, FAA, NASA, and IRS; and trim the rest of the nondefense agencies by 34 percent, which would require reducing the 1.05 million staff at the Veterans Administration, Homeland Security, Social Security Administration, and the Justice and Interior departments, among others, by 360,000 employees.
Advertisement
That is, the Trumpian fiscal framework starts with a $30 trillion-plus deficit over the next decade. Yet all of the above sweeping retrenchments of Washington as we know it would not save even $1 trillion over the same period.
Likewise, the 'growth' illusion has been the GOP's go-to fiscal subterfuge for several decades. But given that the US economy is now crushed under a burden of $101 trillion of public and private debt, eking out sustainable real growth above the already optimistic CBO assumptions simply isn't in the cards. Between the pre-crisis peak in 2007 and the fourth quarter of 2024, for instance, real GDP rose by 1.9 percent per year, and that included the benefit of both the Bush tax cuts being renewed in 2012 and the huge Trump tax cuts being added in 2017.
Still, the CBO now assumes growth will average 2.4 percent over the next decade — notwithstanding the headwinds of the soaring debt burdens and the fact that the Federal Reserve is out of dry powder and will be in no position to restart the printing presses any time soon. Besides, even 3 percent annual growth would only boost revenue by about $2.5 trillion over the decade, at best.
Advertisement
I also recommended
In short, I don't see any route by which Trump's second time at bat would generate anything less than $30 trillion of added debt over the next decade. And that would be an outright calamity.
David Stockman is a board member of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. He served as the director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Reagan administration.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
a few seconds ago
- New York Post
Trump is right about border and criminals, but he's losing voters with mass deportations
President Donald Trump delivered on his key campaign promise: Securing the border. Yet the only thing falling faster than illegal crossings has been his approval rating on immigration. The problem: Instead of building on his win at the border with more popular arrests of criminal threats inside the country, the administration is going after migrants indiscriminately. Democrats can't deny it: The border crisis is over. Border Patrol arrests have fallen nearly 90% since December to near-record lows. Nonetheless, only 40% of voters approved of the president's handling of immigration in a July Quinnipiac poll, while 55% disapproved. The 15-point approval deficit contrasts with a +1 rating in the January Q-poll. Other polls show similarly dramatic declines. Of course, people don't actually want more illegal immigration. Polls consistently show that the president is the most trusted on the border. Instead, it's the deportations from within the United States driving the discontent. Quinnipiac's July poll found that only 38% approve of how the administration is handling deportations. That doesn't mean voters back the other side — 84% of disagree with Democrats who want to suspend deportations completely, according to a March Pew Research Center poll. But Trump emphasized that he would prioritize ending 'sanctuary and protection for dangerous criminals' — the position of 81% of voters. Unfortunately, most voters don't believe the president is doing that right now. Even as late as June, voters told CBS News they thought that the president was prioritizing 'dangerous criminals' over peaceful immigrants 53%-47%. By mid-July, it was 44%-56% the other way — an 18-point swing in a month. What happened? Voters started to see how the priorities shifted. According to The Post's reporting, agents were instructed in late May to focus on 'quantity over quality' to meet a 3,000-per-day 'goal' set by the White House. ICE was advised to target people looking for work at Home Depot and to raid businesses in industries likely to employ illegal workers. Rather than scooping up violent criminals recklessly sent back to the streets by New York City or even cleaning out the homeless shelters costing New York taxpayers a fortune, ICE is arresting immigrants who are helping power the Trump economy. Since the White House ordered the change, there has been a dramatic escalation in arrests of people without criminal records. In June, the number of immigrants arrested without criminal convictions was 1,100% higher than it was even in 2017 during the first Trump term: nearly 6,000 per week. Yet there are still half a million illegal immigrants with criminal convictions out there to remove — and ICE should locate them before spending its time and resources on workers. It's common sense: ICE agents told The Post that the policy was 'leading them to leave some dangerous criminal illegal migrants on the streets.' Setting aside politics and crime, Trump has already publicly acknowledged there's an economic downside to these non-criminal deportations. 'Our aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long-time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace,' he said in June, referencing farms, hotels, and leisure businesses. The president is correct. Besides the border, the president's other primary election issue was inflation. And immigrants reduce inflation — not, as critics claim, by depressing wages for American workers, but by increasing production of goods and services. When supply decreases, prices go up for consumers, as we painfully saw throughout the pandemic. Immigrant workers also benefit their American counterparts: Companies invest more when there is enough labor to quickly construct and fully man facilities, and Americans end up in better jobs as managers and supervisors when immigrant workers fill lesser-skilled jobs. Booting the nearly 2 million illegal-immigrant construction workers will pull Americans out of those better-paying jobs, not into the labor force. Whatever the immigration politics are, Trump's midterm success will ultimately depend most on his economic outcomes. Americans re-elected him because they remember his first term before the pandemic as a period of stable wage and job growth — but random mass deportations are both politically unpopular and economically destabilizing. Although the president has promised 'changes are coming' on deportations, none have yet occurred. In April, Trump floated the idea that employers might be able to sponsor their illegal workers for visas if the workers leave the country and return legally. That's a great starting point: If no employer is willing to vouch for them, deportation likely won't have much economic downside. The president has diagnosed the problem. He's come up with a viable solution. And the One Big Beautiful Bill shows he's capable of navigating controversial legislation across the finish line. With the economy slowing and midterms looming, there's no reason to wait. David J. Bier is Director of Immigration Studies at the Cato Institute.
Tom's Guide
a few seconds ago
- Tom's Guide
Apple's smartphone market share plummets as Samsung surges — here's why
The rising demand for the best foldable phones is great for Samsung and not so great for Apple. Now, a new report shows Samsung is eating into Apple's market lead in the U.S. after the iPhone maker saw a rare double-digit dip last quarter. In the second quarter of 2025, Apple's market share in the U.S. fell from 56% to 49%, while Samsung's share surged from 23% to 31%, according to data from Canalys. That means Samsung managed to close the market share gap between it and Apple from 33% a year ago to 18% last quarter. Much of Samsung's second-quarter improvement hinged on its more affordable Galaxy A series, like the Galaxy A36. That just goes to show that the race for the best cheap phones is heating up alongside rising prices. Samsung's premium offerings, particularly the Galaxy Z Fold 7 and Z Flip 7 that debuted last month, have also gained plenty of traction on social media for their surprising durability and value. Canalys credits Samsung's record Q2 growth to its strategy of "smart volume," a focus on offering a wider range of products at different price levels compared to Apple's line-up. Samsung's Galaxy and Z phone lineups start at $650 (for the Galaxy S24 FE) and go up to $2,400 (for the 1TB storage option Galaxy Z Fold 7). "That is a massive span of devices,' Canalys analyst Runar Bjorhovde told NBC News. 'There is an idea that you can target people at every single price point, and you can meet them at every spot.' Though the overall U.S. smartphone market barely grew during the same period, up to 27.1 million units compared to last year's 26.7 million, Samsung enjoyed the strongest performance of any phonemaker. The company shipped 8.3 million units in Q2 2025, a 38% increase year over year. Apple, on the other hand, saw shipments fall by 11% to 13.3 million units, down from 14.9 million a year ago. Apple still holds the crown for most smartphone sales in the U.S., but for the first time in over a decade, its position is beginning to look shaky on its home turf. The last time we saw Samsung seriously challenge Apple's top spot was back in 2014, when the Korean smartphone manufacturer embraced big-screen phones and phablets while Apple was still dragging its feet. Consumer preference isn't the only thing fueling the market share shift, though. As Canalys notes, "Samsung's performance in Q2 was boosted by frontloading of inventory into the U.S. amid tariff concerns," one of several strategies smartphone makers used to minimize the impact of Trump's tariffs. Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. If Apple wants to regain its standing in the U.S. market, it'll have to pull out all the stops at its iPhone 17 event this September. This year promises a big shake-up for the iPhone lineup, with the Plus model expected to be replaced by the super-thin iPhone 17 Air. The iPhone 17 Air is a direct competitor to the Galaxy S25 Edge, Samsung's thinnest phone yet, but it may not be enough to change Apple's fortunes. Counterpoint Research, a research firm that estimates smartphone sales, found Samsung only saw a "slight year-over-year boost" in sales after the S25 Edge was released in May. If consumers are as blasé about the Air as they were about the Edge, Apple's going to be in trouble. Follow Tom's Guide on Google News to get our up-to-date news, how-tos, and reviews in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button.
The Hill
a few seconds ago
- The Hill
Why does the federal jobs report get revised?
Revisions to the jobs report issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) are at the center of a political firestorm after President Trump fired the agency's head earlier this month. The agency's most recent report revised down employment numbers for May and June by a whopping 258,000 jobs, drawing accusations by the president and his allies that the numbers were manipulated for political purposes. That's not true, most economists say. BLS instead revises its numbers to account for more information from its nationwide surveys, and the agency remains the gold standard for macroeconomic data in the U.S. Still, there are measures that the bureau could take, its supporters say, to modernize the collection of its survey data, particularly for its population survey — one of two surveys used to compile the jobs report. A group of former BLS heads has asked Congress to fund the agency with at least $770 million for the upcoming fiscal year. 'The greatest way to restore confidence would be ensuring that they have the resources they need,' said Kyle Ross, a fellow at the left-leaning Center for American Progress. Why the jobs report gets revised Each month, the BLS surveys a sample of more than 120,000 employers by email and phone, aiming to collect data on wages, total employment and other characteristics. At the end of the month, it publishes an initial estimate of how many jobs the U.S. has added from the data it has. The BLS also conducts a survey of households to track the employment status and take-home wages for the country at large. In the next two months, the bureau issues updates to its estimates, incorporating additional responses to the surveys and adjustments for seasonal changes. While the August revisions surprised many economists, they weren't the first time the BLS made large changes. During the pandemic, the agency had to make significant revisions to many of its estimates; in the summer of 2021, for example, it marked down its estimate for June to September job growth by 626,000 positions. Several key BLS surveys have struggled with falling response rates over the past two decades. The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco estimates that response rates to the employment survey are around 45 percent, down to about 60 percent prior to the pandemic. However, the limited responses do not appear to have impacted the size of the BLS's revisions after 2022, the bank said in March. Over more than 60 years of data collection, the agency's initial job estimates have gradually become more accurate, according to analysis by Ernie Tedeschi, an economist at the Yale Budget Lab. Concerns over other BLS metrics Advocates say that while Trump's claims of political bias are baseless, the agency could use extra funding to be able to modernize particularly on its Current Population Survey, which polls households instead of businesses on employment. Friends of the BLS, an advocacy group that includes former commissioners William Beach and Erica Groshen, asked Congress in May to fund the agency with at least $770 million for the upcoming fiscal year. In a letter to appropriators, the group said that additional Congressional funding would allow the agency to go forward with long-planned updates to its data collection and methods. Among other modernization efforts, the agency is hoping to implement an online response model for its Current Population Survey. Additional funding, Beach and Groshen said, would also help the BLS maintain detailed data for important statistics like the Consumer Price Index, which tracks price inflation. The agency relies in part on data collectors who fan out across the country to monitor prices of goods and services. 'The field person will literally pick up a jar of, if I could say Pringles, and they'll say, well last month, we had 36 Pringles in here, and it's this month, it's the same price, but we only have 32 Pringles in here,' Beach, who was Trump's BLS pick during his first administration, told the Bloomberg podcast Odd Lots in April. 'That means that the product has actually gone up in price.' Last summer, in response to budget constraints, BLS mulled cutting the population survey's sample size by 5,000 households.
