The White House claims Trump’s economic bill will cut $1.6T from the deficit, but experts project a $3.3T rise instead.
Despite growing concerns from fiscal conservatives and independent analysts, the White House maintains that President Trump’s new economic proposal—dubbed the “big beautiful bill”—is a fiscally responsible measure that will reduce the federal deficit by $1.6 trillion. However, new projections suggest the opposite may be true.
Washington, D.C., May 20, 2025 – The White House defended President Donald Trump’s sweeping economic legislation on Monday, claiming it would lead to historic deficit reduction and sustained economic growth. However, independent analysts and budget experts have raised serious doubts about those projections, with some suggesting that the bill could instead add trillions to the national debt over the coming decade.
In a press briefing on Monday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt argued that the administration’s proposed legislation would “not add to the deficit” and asserted that it would “save $1.6 trillion.” She referenced the findings of the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA), though closer examination revealed the figure may stem from a separate budget office analysis rather than a direct CEA projection.
The CEA released its own report the same day, offering a broadly optimistic assessment of the bill’s long-term impact. The agency predicted that the proposed policies would promote economic growth, job creation, and wage increases. However, the report stopped short of endorsing the specific $1.6 trillion in savings cited by Leavitt.
CEA Chair Stephen Miran also spoke to reporters on Monday, casting doubt on independent evaluations of the bill, particularly the widely cited analysis by the Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWBM). “That group has a track record of being wrong,” said Miran, referring to the nonpartisan think tank housed at the University of Pennsylvania.
The PWBM’s latest estimate, released just hours after the CEA’s press event, included a scenario incorporating the bill’s “positive economic dynamics” and still concluded that the legislation would increase the federal primary deficit by approximately $3.3 trillion over the next decade. Furthermore, the model found the bill would lift U.S. GDP by just 0.5% over 10 years—a far cry from the CEA’s projection of 4.2% to 5.2% growth over the next four years.
Miran contended that broader economic factors, such as increased revenue from tariffs, deregulation, interest expense reductions, and cost-cutting from the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), would enhance the bill’s fiscal impact beyond what static models can capture.
“I do want to assure everyone that the deficit is a very significant concern for this administration,” Miran said. “We’re determined to bring it down.”
This strategy echoes the rhetoric of the Trump administration during the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) debate, when officials argued that tax cuts would eventually pay for themselves through higher economic output and tax revenue. However, the legacy of the TCJA has not borne out those expectations, with federal deficits climbing steadily in its aftermath.
As with the 2017 plan, the current proposal leans heavily on supply-side assumptions—that lower taxes and reduced regulatory burdens will unleash significant economic expansion. But outside analysts argue that such projections are overly optimistic and fail to account for the long-term structural challenges facing the U.S. economy, including demographic shifts and entitlement spending.
With some Republicans balking at the bill’s price tag and expressing concern over the growing national debt, the administration now faces an uphill battle in securing enough support to pass the legislation. As negotiations continue, the fiscal implications of the “big beautiful bill” remain a contentious and critical point of debate in Washington.
