Trump's 'big beautiful' bill could add $3.4 trillion to federal deficits in the next 10 years—what it means for your wallet
That's on top of the gross federal debt, which has climbed to more than $36 trillion, up from about $23 trillion in early 2020 — an increase of over 50% in just five years, driven by pandemic relief, rising entitlement costs and persistent deficit spending.
Federal debt held by the public has remained above 90% of GDP since 2020, the highest sustained level since World War II. With deficits projected to persist, that rate is expected to climb to nearly 118.5% of GDP by 2035, per CBO estimates.
Debt at this level raises the risk of higher interest costs, slower growth and reduced budgetary flexibility, the agency warns.
When the government runs a deficit, it raises funds by issuing Treasury bonds and other securities. As the debt grows, so do the interest payments required to service it.
Interest payments have become a major drain on the federal budget, consuming more than 13% of all federal spending. By 2035, that share is projected to rise to 16.7%, or one-sixth of all federal spending, according to CBO estimates.
That means less money for public priorities like infrastructure, education and emergency aid, and less flexibility to respond to the next recession or emergency.
Persistent deficits create other economic risks, too. If government spending outpaces the economy's ability to produce goods and services, it can drive inflation higher.
At the same time, issuing more Treasury bonds increases the supply in the market, which can lower their value and lead investors to demand higher yields.
"To entice financial institutions, households and foreigners to hold more U.S. bonds and bills, the government will have to entice them with higher interest rates," Kris James Mitchener, professor of economics at Santa Clara University, tells CNBC Make It.
As the national debt grows, consumers could face higher interest rates on credit cards, mortgages, auto loans and other types of borrowing.
That's because persistent deficits can lead to concerns about inflation or fiscal discipline, which in turn push Treasury yields and interest rates higher.
"If servicing the debt becomes unsustainable, consumers can expect to see higher interest rates across debt products and a slower economy overall," Elizabeth Renter, senior economist at NerdWallet, tells CNBC Make It.
In that scenario, lawmakers may also be forced to cut spending on social programs or raise taxes, which could also directly impact household budgets.
While rising debt and interest costs have raised concerns among economists and investors, the bond market itself has remained relatively calm in recent months.
The yield on the 10-year Treasury note — a key benchmark for borrowing costs — is holding near 4.4%, only slightly higher than a year ago. And a $39 billion auction of 10-year notes last week drew strong demand, easing fears that investors might start backing away as deficits grow.
That stability likely reflects continued global confidence in U.S. Treasuries, which are viewed as one of the safest investments in the world. Because of that trust, the effects of rising deficits may not be felt right away. But if that trust falters, borrowing costs could climb quickly.
However, the timing of that turning point is anyone's guess. As Peter Boockvar, chief investment officer at Bleakley Advisory Group, put it July 7 on CNBC's Squawk Box: "It doesn't matter until it does."
.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
22 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Robert Schmuhl: Winston Churchill responded to political defeat by linking arms with America
Winston Churchill knew political defeat but never quite like the one he suffered nearly 80 years ago on July 26, 1945. For this notable tippler, it was more humiliating than losing his seat in Parliament to a prohibitionist opponent two decades earlier. In the United Kingdom's election of 1945, Churchill won his own campaign to remain in the House of Commons — but the Conservative Party he led received a drubbing. Labour captured 393 seats to 197 for the Conservatives. Churchill, prime minister since 1940, was immediately shown the door of 10 Downing Street. Clementine Churchill tried to console her husband of 37 years: 'It may be a blessing in disguise.' Her distraught spouse snapped: 'At the moment, it's certainly very well disguised.' Churchill's loss couldn't have come at a worst time, as far as he was concerned. The Potsdam Conference, involving the 'Big Three' of President Harry Truman, Soviet leader Josef Stalin and Churchill, was in full swing. Decisions about the postwar world, Germany's future and concluding hostilities against Japan remained unresolved. The new prime minister, Clement Attlee, replaced Churchill at the conference eight days before it ended. Between April and late July of that year, Franklin Roosevelt had died, and Churchill was removed as head of the British government. Key World War II architects were no longer making decisions, leaving Stalin senior partner of the alliance battling the Axis powers. But why, people today ask, did Churchill lose? British voters regarded Churchill an inspiring wartime commander. He rallied people during dark hours and many months of fighting alone against Adolf Hitler's Germany. But as much as they admired him under fire, the United Kingdom citizenry harbored doubts about Churchill's capability to switch gears and lead in peacetime with different social and economic demands. To them, it was time for a change. Dejected from rejection, Churchill went off on an Italian holiday to paint — and plot. The trouncing cast him in a new role, leader of the opposition, but he continued to scrutinize world affairs, as he'd done the decade before with Nazism and fascism on the rise. Less than a year after being tossed out, he visited Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, to speak truth about power. He sounded the alarm that former ally Stalin was responsible for an 'iron curtain' descending across Europe, creating Soviet satellites to Kremlin rule. From Churchill's perspective, the 'Soviet sphere' operated with pernicious intentions. 'I do not believe that Soviet Russia desires war,' he argued. 'What they desire is the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines.' Churchill's return to global attention received mixed reviews. Some commentators labeled his speech unduly bellicose; others applauded his courage to define ominous realities. Churchill deliberately chose the U.S. rather than his homeland to plant his flag against Soviet expansionism. As prime minister, he'd made five transatlantic trips for extended meetings with Roosevelt. He understood America was the 'leader of the free world,' and he wanted to strengthen ties between his country and this one. In his 'iron curtain' speech, Churchill spoke of the need for 'a special relationship.' He even proposed common citizenship. That phrase 'special relationship' entered common parlance and still reverberates in transatlantic affairs affecting the two nations. But Churchill did more than compose and deliver memorable orations. He kept brawling in the political arena, winning back 10 Downing Street in 1951 and remaining in power until he resigned in 1955 at the age of 80. Churchill considered Russia 'a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.' That convoluted, inscrutable description holds true today, as Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin seem to talk past each other whenever they address the war in Ukraine and other subjects. By contrast, America was an open book to Churchill and, in his opinion, 'at the pinnacle of world power.' He wanted the British empire, then showing definite signs of decline, to link arms in facing the future. With shrewd foresight, he conducted personal diplomacy to nurture the 'special relationship,' scheduling regular parleys with presidents. Between 1946 and his last White House visit in 1959, he met with Truman and Dwight Eisenhower six times in Washington and New York. On the day Churchill resigned 70 years ago this past April, he told his cabinet, 'Never be separated from the Americans.' The decade between his humiliation of 1945 and his departure as prime minister was marked by cataclysmic change and unrelenting Cold War danger. Yet as storm clouds gathered, he worked to disperse them. During those years as before, he championed freedom and democracy. 'Trust the people' was his mantra — and his bulldog determination helped him rebound from defeat to return to the world stage, this time as a seeker of peace.
Chicago Tribune
22 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Robert A. Pape: To prevent nuclear war in the Middle East, America needs to change its nuclear doctrine
The world is moving closer to the brink of nuclear war in alarming ways that are more dangerous and harder to anticipate than during the Cold War. The famous 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis was a harrowing near miss, but today's nuclear dangers are more complex. This is due to a variety of factors, particularly coming together in the Middle East: increasing tensions across the region, growing risks of nuclear proliferation, and now perils of surprise military attack during crises involving states with nuclear weapons or on the cusp of nuclear weapons. Israel's recent 12-day war against Iran is a harbinger of potentially growing nuclear dangers to come. For the first time in history, two nuclear armed states — Israel and the United States — bombed a state, Iran, with a major nuclear program that many believe is on the threshold of acquiring all the physical and technical capacities necessary to produce nuclear weapons within a matter of months. For sure, the 12-day war involved a series of attacks and counterattacks that were terrifying to live through, and there was great relief when they came to an end. However, the future is even more concerning. First, Israeli and American bombing did not obliterate Iran's nuclear program, as President Donald Trump astonishingly declared before he received bomb damage assessments. As is now widely agreed among U.S. defense intelligence, Israeli intelligence and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan did not eliminate Iran's stockpiles of highly enriched uranium. Although uncertainly remains about Iran's next steps, there is little doubt that Iran could attempt to produce a 'crude' bomb in a matter of months. And it is important to understand, a 'crude' bomb means a Hiroshima-style weapon that could lead to the deaths of 80,000 people from the immediate effects of the blast. Second, future information about Iran's nuclear program is fraught with high degrees of uncertainty. From the beginning, Iran has allowed IAEA inspectors to have tremendous access to monitor its nuclear enrichment program. True, these inspections have fluctuated over time and have never been as fully comprehensive as many would have liked. However, for decades, the quarterly IAEA reports have been crucial for high confidence assessments about the scale of Iran's enrichment program and whether vast amounts of enriched uranium have not been siphoned off to develop nuclear weapons. Now, Iran has reportedly banned IAEA inspectors from its nuclear facilities, and the fear and suspicion about a surprise nuclear breakout will grow over time. Third, and most important, the 12-day war shows that the fear of surprise attack is now fully justified. It is important to recall that the war started June 13 with a stunning, Pearl Harbor-like surprise attack by Israel on Iran's nuclear sites. Israel's bolt-from-the-blue strike occurred without warning and while Iranian negotiators were preparing to meet with their American counterparts just days later. Given these events, Israel, the United States and Iran now face the specter of one of the most terrifying scenarios for nuclear war: the 'reciprocal fear of surprise attack.' That's a situation in which both sides of a potential conflict fear being attacked first, leading them to consider — and possibly launch — a preemptive strike to avoid being caught off guard. The most worrisome aspect is that striking first in these circumstances has an element of rationality. If one side thinks the other is preparing for a surprise attack, then attacking first, even if it carries risks, may be the best way to reduce one's own losses. Of course, nuclear war is so horrible that the reciprocal fear of surprise attack may never lead to an actual outbreak of war. If so, then the prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons would not be a problem in the first place. Alas, we need to take this danger seriously. What can be done? Although there are no perfect solutions to the reciprocal fear of surprise attack, there is one step that would significantly matter: For the United States, Iran and Israel to declare that they would never be the first to use nuclear weapons in a crisis involving Iran. The general idea of 'no first use' pledges, as they are called, arose during the Cold War, but the United States has never been willing to make such a promise. At the time, this was thought of in the context of the U.S., Europe and Soviet contest in which America needed the implicit threat of the first use of nuclear weapons to offset the Soviet conventional military threat to U.S. nonnuclear European allies. The Middle East is clearly different. America's main ally, Israel, is a powerful nuclear weapons state and so does not rely on U.S. nuclear weapons to deter attacks on its homeland. For the United States, Israel and Iran to agree a limited no-first-use policy would not end the tensions over Iran's nuclear program. However, it would energize negotiations and avoid some of the worst ways that a nuclear war could inadvertently occur. The Nobel Laureate Assembly to Prevent Nuclear War taking place at the University of Chicago recently was a perfect place to begin a national conversation about the value of adapting U.S. nuclear doctrine to today's realities in the Middle East. If this assembly of the most brilliant minds on the planet could recommend this historic step in which the U.S., Iran and Israel each pledge they would not be the first to use nuclear weapons in the dispute involving Iran's nuclear program, this would be a meaningful step toward preventing nuclear war in one of the most dangerous regions in the world.
Washington Post
23 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Trump survived many scandals, but the Epstein story poses a new test
Nearly two weeks after President Donald Trump and his administration announced they had nothing more to say about Jeffrey Epstein's criminal case, the topic continues to dog him, presenting a potential new political liability at the six-month mark of his presidency as Trump tries to sell more Americans on his accomplishments.
