Este artĂculo estarĂĄ disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.
Multiple independent analyses say the recently passed House reconciliation bill â even with its deep spending cuts in some areas â would add trillions of dollars to the federal deficit over 10 years. Those analyses contradict Republican lawmakers who have downplayed the net cost of the bill and White House claims that it wouldnât increase the deficit at all.
The House passed H.R. 1, dubbed the âOne Big Beautiful Bill Act,â on May 22 after an all-night session. The vote was 215 to 214, with two Republicans voting against it. The bill would extend the 2017 tax cuts, make other tax cuts, boost border security funding and cut Medicaid spending, among other provisions. It now goes to the Senate, where it faces some Republican opposition to the billâs effect on the national debt.
The Trump administration has tried to cast the House bill in the rosiest light. At a May 19 press briefing, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said, âThis bill does not add to the deficit.â On the morning of May 22, Leavitt celebrated its passage in the House with a post on X claiming, in part, âLargest deficit reduction in nearly 30 years, securing $1.6 trillion in mandatory savings.â
That same morning, Republican Rep. John Rutherford of Florida, said on Facebook, âContrary to what you are hearing about the One Big Beautiful Bill, it will NOT be a huge deficit bill.â
Rutherford was responding to a Congressional Budget Office report on the bill that said for the years 2026 to 2034, despite some proposed spending cuts, there would, on net, be âan increase in the federal deficit of $3.8 trillion attributable to tax changes, including extending provisions of the 2017 tax act.â
In an interview on CNNâs âState of the Unionâ on May 25, House Speaker Mike Johnson, also addressing the nonpartisan budget officeâs report, said the CBO doesnât do âdynamic scoring. What that means is, they donât account for the growth that will be fostered by all the policies that are in this big piece of legislation. ⊠Just remember the last Trump administration. After the first two years, we brought about the greatest economy in the history of the world, not just the U.S.â
On CBSâ âFace the Nationâ the same day, Johnson agreed with host Margaret Brennan that the bill would cost between $4 trillion and $5 trillion over the next 10 years. âThatâs about the right estimate,â Johnson said. âBut, at the same time, we have historic savings for the American people, cuts to government to make it more efficient and effective and â and work better for the people,â he continued.
âSo, in the calculation here, thereâs more than $1.5 trillion in savings, Margaret, for the people. And thatâs â thatâs the largest amount â biggest cut in government really in at least 30 years and, if you adjust for inflation, probably the largest in the history of government,â Johnson said.
As weâve written before, the U.S. didnât have âthe greatest economyâ during President Donald Trumpâs first term, as Johnson claimed. Economists examine inflation-adjusted gross domestic product growth to measure economic health, and that figure exceeded Trumpâs peak year of 3% growth more than a dozen times before he took office. (Also, as weâve written, economists disagree with Trumpâs assertion that the 2017 tax cuts resulted in a net increase in federal revenue.)
And while Johnson claimed the CBO doesnât account for âdynamicâ growth in its report on the House bill, other organizations that do include growth in their assessments estimate the bill would add $1.7 trillion or $3.2 trillion to the deficit over 10 years.
Adding Trillions to the Deficit
âThe bill is certainly not the largest deficit reduction in nearly 30 years â itâs not deficit reduction at all,â Marc Goldwein, senior vice president of the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, told us in response to Leavittâs claim. The increase to the deficit over 10 years will be $3.1 trillion with interest, according to CRFBâs breakdown.
âAnd the bill isnât the largest spending cut in 30 years ⊠I donât even think itâs the largest spending cut in 30 months,â Goldwein said, referring to Johnsonâs claim. âIn June of 2023, President Biden signed the Fiscal Responsibility Act â which reduced non-interest spending by $1.34 trillion and reduced total spending with interest by $1.53 trillion.â
âWhatâs important to know about the $1.5 or $1.6 trillion of spending cuts is that it doesnât count spending increases in other parts of the bill â such as for defense and homeland security,â Goldwein said in an email. (Emphasis is his.) CRFBâs breakdown of the bill on May 21 showed $144 billion in additional spending for defense and $67 billion extra directed to homeland security for immigration enforcement.
Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, told us in an email that the House bill ânot only is not the largest deficit reduction in 30 years, it would add trillions of dollars to the deficit by any reasonable estimate. It is one of the biggest peacetime increases in the debt in history.â (Emphasis is his.)
âThe biggest reason, by far, is the tax cut,â Gleckman said, referring to the extension of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the billâs other measures, including no tax on tips or overtime, a tax deduction for those 65 and older, and a deduction for interest on loans for cars made in the U.S.
The nonpartisan Penn Wharton Budget Model arrived at a similar figure as CRFB for the deficit increase in its review of the House bill. âWe estimate the House-passed reconciliation bill increases primary deficits by $2.8 trillion over 10 years. GDP rises slightly, as labor supply and savings respond to a reduced safety net, but the dynamic score is larger ($3.2 trillion) than the conventional,â PWBM reported. (Emphasis is PWBMâs.)
âSo, the claim of a deficit reduction is wrong,â Kent Smetters, a professor of business economics and public policy at the University of Pennsylvania, said. But Johnsonâs estimate of $1.5 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years is âa reasonable statement,â Smetters, faculty director of the PWBM, also told us in an email.
However, PWBMâs analysis contradicts Johnsonâs suggestion in his CNN interview that âdynamic scoringâ that accounted for economic effects would bring down the reported cost of the legislation. PWBMâs dynamic score increased the estimated cost over 10 years.
âIncluding dynamic effects does not reduce the legislative costs despite small, positive increases in GDP over the first decade,â the report said. The savings from economic growth wonât occur until 2033 and wonât be enough to counterbalance higher costs that come in earlier years, according to the PWBM. But after 2033, âthe dynamic costs fall relative to conventional, a difference which persists until 2054.â
The Penn Wharton report found that â[o]n a dynamic lifetime basis, lower-income households and some in the middle class are worse off, despite positive economic effects,â largely due to the cut in safety net programs and higher federal debt. Under dynamic scoring, some households reduce their number of hours worked and gain Medicaid coverage (whereas they would lose it under conventional scoring), and some higher-income households work fewer hours, and therefore contribute less in tax revenue, among other economic effects, causing the dynamic cost to be higher.
Another analysis found that dynamic scoring would lower the net cost of the legislation, though it would still be a deficit-increaser. The Tax Foundation estimated the bill would add $2.6 trillion to the deficit over 10 years, but the figure would drop to $1.7 trillion on a dynamic basis.
The Tax Foundationâs model âdoes not incorporate any economic impact from more federal debt,â Smetters said of the difference in that groupâs estimate.
We reached out to the White House and Johnsonâs office for comment on the findings of the independent analyses, but we didnât receive a response.
As we noted, the bill moves next to the Senate, which is expected to debate various changes through July. Both chambers must approve identical legislation before it goes to the president for his signature.
Editorâs note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our âDonateâ page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, P.O. Box 58100, Philadelphia, PA 19102.
