PPI Report Warns Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ is Doubling Down on Biden’s ‘Build Back Better’ Mistakes

WASHINGTON — As President Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans begin drafting a sweeping “Big Beautiful Bill” to implement their second-term economic agenda, a new report from the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) warns that the GOP’s reconciliation effort risks repeating — and exacerbating — the economic and political mistakes of President Biden’s failed “Build Back Better” plan.

The report, How Trump’s BBB is Shaping Up to Be an Even Bigger Mess Than Biden’s,” authored by Ben Ritz, PPI’s Vice President of Policy Development, argues that despite the difference in their origins and ideological goals, the BBBs of Joe Biden and Donald Trump have far more in common than just their initials. The two presidents’ signature spending plans share deep structural flaws stemming from poor leadership, unreasonable campaign promises, misleading budget gimmicks, and a refusal to reckon with inflationary risks.

“Joe Biden’s approach to party-line reconciliation bills was arguably the biggest failure of his presidency,” said Ritz. “Trump and Congressional Republicans are now on track to make all the same mistakes — but on a much larger scale, with even greater risks to the economy and their own political standing.”

In the report, Ritz outlines a series of parallels — and troubling new developments — that suggest Trump’s BBB could be even more economically reckless and politically damaging than the one pursued by his Democratic predecessor:

  • Both Overpromised And Refused to Set Priorities: Biden refused to set realistic priorities or grapple with tradeoffs as he sought to pass a grab bag of policies from the wishlists of left-leaning interest groups. But Trump has demonstrated even weaker leadership by seeking to incorporate a cacophony of even more costly and conflicting demands within his BBB.
  • Both Tied Their Hands With Shortsighted Tax Pledges: Whereas Biden’s pledge never to raise taxes on any household earning under $400K made it impossible to fully pay for his spending priorities, Trump’s campaign promises to cut taxes on tips, overtime pay, Social Security benefits, and more could deepen deficits by nearly $9 trillion over 10 years.
  • Both Relied on Procedural Gimmicks Masking Real Tradeoffs: Democrats used procedural tricks to make their BBB appear deficit-neutral and punt difficult political decisions until it was too late. Republicans are now utilizing similar gimmicks but aren’t even attempting to achieve deficit-neutrality. Even worse, they’re attempting to employ new gimmicks that would permanently erode the integrity of the budget process and open the door to tens of trillions of dollars in new deficit spending down the line.
  • Both Exhibited A Cavalier Attitude Towards Inflation: When confronted with rising inflation, the Biden administration paid lip service to cutting costs but continued to pursue inflationary policies. Trump has doubled down on this attitude during his second term, relying on the exact same excuses and scapegoats to justify his budget-busting policies. 
  • Costs Are Greater Today Than in 2021: Unlike in Biden’s first year, today’s high interest rates and record debt servicing costs mean fiscal recklessness will inflict even greater harm on American families. Independent estimates show that Trump’s BBB could reduce real wealth by more than $36,000 per household and put the U.S. economy in unprecedented peril.

“Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans were elected on a promise to ‘End Inflation and Make America Affordable Again,’” Ritz said. “If they insist on betraying their democratic mandate by doubling down on inflationary economic policy, they should expect the same political fate as their predecessors.”

Read and download the report here.

Launched in 2018, the Progressive Policy Institute’s Center for Funding America’s Future works to promote a fiscally responsible public investment agenda that fosters robust and inclusive economic growth. To that end, the Center develops fiscally responsible policy proposals to strengthen public investments in the foundation of our economy, modernize health and retirement programs to reflect an aging society, transform our tax code to reward work over wealth, and put the national debt on a downward trajectory.

Founded in 1989, PPI is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Find an expert and learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Follow us @PPI

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

How Trump’s BBB is Shaping Up to Be an Even Bigger Mess Than Biden’s

Donald Trump was elected in 2024 on a promise to “End Inflation and Make America Affordable Again.” He criticized “Joe Biden’s reckless spending spree, which is more reckless than anybody’s ever done or had in the history of our country.” And he complained that the incumbent Democrat was guilty of “weak, ineffective, and virtually nonexistent leadership.” In survey after survey, voters made clear they largely agreed with Trump’s assessment. 

Perhaps no episode of Biden’s presidency better displayed the traits that fueled these criticisms than his failed effort to pass a sprawling “Build Back Better” domestic spending bill through the filibuster-proof reconciliation process in 2021. But as Congressional Republicans begin crafting a “big beautiful bill” to enact the bulk of Trump’s economic agenda through that process, there are early signs that they’re making all the same mistakes — or perhaps even more.

Although very different in their origins and ideological goals, these two BBBs have far more in common than just their initials. Both Biden’s BBB and Trump’s BBB seem crafted more to fulfill a lengthy wishlist for the president’s ideological allies than address a pressing national need. Both parties struggled to find a way to pay for these wishlists in large part because of shortsighted tax pledges their presidential nominee made during the previous campaign. Rather than right-sizing their ambitions, Republicans today are seeking to ram through their BBB using legislative tactics eerily reminiscent of those that backfired on Democrats in 2021. And both parties pursued their BBB with a cavalier disregard for their contributions to inflation, provoking voters’ ire on their top economic concern.

But there are many ways in which the 2025 Republican BBB is likely to be even more damaging — both economically and politically — by piling on debt and exacerbating inflation at a time when the country can least afford it. If Republicans continue going down this path, they risk betraying their electoral mandate to cut the cost of living and giving Democrats a perfect opportunity to regain something that’s long eluded them: public confidence on handling the economy.

BUDGET-BUSTING BILLS BACKFIRE WHEN THEY IGNITE INFLATION

After voters rewarded their parties with narrow but decisive victories in 2020 and 2024, respectively, both Biden and Trump believed they had a mandate to pass sweeping policies in partisan megabills through reconciliation. At the time of its passage, 63% of voters supported Biden’s first reconciliation bill — the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, which was intended to support the economy through the final stage of the COVID-19 pandemic. But the inflationary effect of this bill drowned out the popularity of the individual policies contained within it and the subsequent legislation Biden sought to pass.

In an incisive post-mortem of the failures of Biden’s economic policy, Jason Furman — the former Chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors — explains how excessive government spending during the Biden Administration helped push inflation to heights not seen in decades. Moreover, this inflation effectively reversed the policy accomplishments Democrats thought Biden had achieved, such as by canceling out the spending increase from the bipartisan infrastructure law passed in 2021 or causing real wages to fall below their pre-pandemic level.

Inflation reversed not only the economic benefits of Biden’s policies but also their political benefits. Polling of working-class voters conducted later in the Biden administration by PPI found that 69% of respondents said the rising cost of living was the greatest economic challenge facing the United States, with 55% of those voters believing the primary cause was government overspending. No matter how popular Biden’s programs may have been in the abstract, voters didn’t support them at the expense of keeping the cost of living down. 

Democrats suffered both because the unpopularity of inflation outweighed the popularity of their policies, and because their programs were perceived as worsening it. That experience should be a warning for Republicans as they pursue their own party-line reconciliation bill. In isolation, any one of Trump’s proposed tax cuts may poll well. But if they worsen inflation and further increase the cost of living, Republicans are unlikely to reap any political benefits.

TWO FAILURES OF LEADERSHIP

Over the first 100 days of his second term, Donald Trump has repeated many of the missteps that Biden took toward developing budget-busting bills that worsened inflation and his party’s political prospects — starting with an inability to effectively lead. 

From the very beginning, Joe Biden’s economic agenda was undermined by the fact that neither he nor Congressional Democrats were willing to define top priorities and make trade-offs. When crafting the American Rescue Plan, they opted to pursue a $1.9 trillion price tag that several experts (including myself) warned was too big and likely to invite inflation. Subsequent reporting has revealed that Biden agreed to this figure not because he believed it was the was the right level of spending to meet the country’s macroeconomic needs, but because it was the amount Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer needed to fund a running list of requests from his members — and neither of them was willing to tell anyone “No.”

When it came time to craft a second reconciliation bill to implement their longer-term “Build Back Better” priorities, Democrats again struggled to prioritize. Previously successful party-line reconciliation bills focused on addressing a specific national goal, such as Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act (health-care reform) or Donald Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (tax reform). In contrast, Biden’s BBB was a grab bag of policies from the wishlists of left-leaning interest groups and their Congressional champions. Voters had a hard time making sense of this mishmash of health care, energy, child care, infrastructure, education, elder care, tax policy, and more. 

Although polls found solid majorities in support of the constituent policies in Biden’s BBB, only about 40% of voters supported the package as a whole at the time it collapsed. Many Democrats still believe this disconnect — and the party’s generally low approval rating on economic issues throughout the Biden era — simply amount to a “messaging problem.” But the real explanation is that there is far more support for individual spending proposals in isolation than for doing all of them together, especially when voters were already blaming a lack of fiscal discipline for inflation. In the abstract, who doesn’t want to expand access to life-saving health care or reduce the financial burdens of raising children on hard-working parents? But budgeting is about trade-offs and voters did not believe Democratic leaders were capable of making them.

Donald Trump has thus far shown himself even more incapable of setting clear priorities. The 119th Congress began amid internal Republican debates over how to advance Trump’s energy and security spending priorities while also extending and expanding upon the expiring provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed in his first term. Senate Republicans preferred to pass the spending priorities in one reconciliation bill followed by a second reconciliation bill with the tax priorities, while the House preferred to do it all at once. Trump waffled for months, leaving both chambers to go down divergent procedural routes before settling on his demand for “one big beautiful bill.”

Even now, the president continues to give Congressional Republicans conflicting guidance about the composition of his BBB and how he intends to pay for it. He has told House Republicans he supports cutting more than $1 trillion from mandatory spending while telling Senate Republicans he does not support cutting the programs that would be necessary to achieve those savings. The poorly targeted cuts identified by Trump’s “Department of Government Efficiency” are on track to save just a few billion dollars, while the deeper cuts to discretionary spending proposed in the administration’s “skinny budget” last week were immediately criticized as unworkable by their own Congressional allies. The few tax loopholes Trump has expressed willingness to close — such as for carried interest and sports stadiums — also wouldn’t raise a significant amount of revenue.

By far, the biggest “offsets” Trump has proposed are his sweeping tariffs, which the president is imposing through executive actions but his advisors are clearly linking to the BBB reconciliation bill. Trump aide Peter Navarro claimed the tariffs enacted on “Liberation Day” would raise $6 trillion over 10 years to help pay for tax cuts. But that faulty calculation does not account for falling revenues as the economy slows down or the tens of billions of taxpayer dollars Trump is planning to spend compensating farmers for destroying their export markets. Still, even critics of the policy agree Trump’s tariffs could raise roughly $2 trillion over 10 years if left in place. 

But the reality is that nobody knows if that’s the plan — least of all Trump. Some Trump advisors, such as Navarro, believe tariffs should be the permanent foundation of our tax system. Most others have suggested the purpose of tariffs is to give him leverage to negotiate better trade deals and foreign policy concessions. If the latter is true, then these tariffs are temporary and won’t even come close to paying for a fraction of the reconciliation bill Republicans are pursuing. This chaos is further evidence that Trump is at least as bad, and likely even worse, at setting priorities as his predecessor was.

TWO PRESIDENTS BOUND BY SHORTSIGHTED TAX PLEDGES

Both Biden and Trump struggled to cover the costs of their BBB in large part because of shortsighted tax pledges they made during the heat of a presidential campaign.

During the 2020 presidential election, Biden pledged not to raise taxes on any household with an annual income under $400,000. That pledge was undoubtedly smart short-term politics: taxes on the ultra-rich are the only ones that poll well. But as a previous report of mine documented, it also made raising revenue extremely difficult by limiting potential tax increases to less than 2% of American taxpayers. 

Even taxing all income not protected by the pledge at revenue-maximizing rates would not be enough to sustainably finance spending at the levels Biden proposed. Yet the tax increases Biden actually proposed were smaller than that, and a Democratic Congress still couldn’t pass them. If Democrats don’t believe they can convince voters that proposed programs are worth personally paying something for, it further suggests those programs aren’t as popular as Democrats wish they were.

Trump now faces a similar challenge of his own making. It would have been difficult enough to find the $4.2 trillion of savings needed over 10 years to offset the cost of making the tax cuts he passed in 2017 permanent. But during the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump made a cacophony of promises to eliminate taxes on tip income, overtime pay, Social Security benefits, auto interest loans, electric generators, and more.

Altogether, the Peter G. Peterson Foundation estimates that these policies could bring the 10-year cost of just the tax provisions in Trump’s BBB to roughly $9 trillion. To put into context how expensive that is: Republicans could completely eliminate Medicaid — the third-largest federal spending program — and still just barely break even.

TWO CONGRESSES USING PROCESS TO PUNT HARD DECISIONS

Knowing that they couldn’t possibly pay for everything their party’s president promised to do in their BBB, Biden’s Democrats and Trump’s Republicans both fell back on legislative shortcuts to mask or avoid difficult tradeoffs.

If enacted permanently, the full suite of BBB spending proposals Congressional Democrats sought to enact would have increased spending by nearly $5 trillion over the 10-year window used for official scorekeeping. But Sen. Joe Manchin — the most resolute deficit hawk in the Senate Democratic caucus — refused to support more than $1.5 trillion of new spending and insisted it all be fully offset. Sen. Schumer convinced Manchin to support a budget resolution with reconciliation instructions that would permit up to $3.5 trillion of new spending so that Congressional committees could begin drafting legislative language. But the two men privately agreed that Manchin’s red line remained unchanged, meaning Democratic leaders merely punted their disagreements rather than resolving them.

Because nobody in either the White House or Congressional leadership was willing to tell activist groups that their priorities had to get cut, they instead tried to circumvent Manchin’s demands using budget gimmicks. The House-passed BBB included tax increases that were permanent and thus effective for the full 10-year window, but spending programs had delayed starts or arbitrary expiration dates. In the official 10-year score, this gimmick made the bill appear roughly deficit-neutral. But in practice, spending programs would be adding to deficits every year they were in place if the law were passed and become increasingly expensive if they were later extended as many Democrats hoped.

Manchin steadfastly refused to engage with these shenanigans and prevented his party from passing a BBB that was deficit-increasing under any measurement. But the “fiscal conscience” of today’s Congressional Republicans is far weaker. While every iteration of BBB legislation Congress considered in 2021 was roughly paid for under traditional scoring methods, no Congressional Republicans are even trying to meet this standard today. 

In February, House Republicans — including the most anti-deficit hardliners — voted to pass a budget resolution that would enable a reconciliation bill to increase deficits by up to $2.8 trillion. Senate Republicans, who balked at the trillions in spending cuts the House required to partially finance GOP tax priorities, passed an even more fiscally irresponsible budget resolution that allowed up to $5.8 trillion in bigger deficits. 

Now Trump’s Republicans are trying to bridge the gap using tactics similar to those that backfired on Biden’s Democrats. First, House leaders — like Manchin did in 2021 — agreed to support the Senate’s budget resolution to keep the process moving forward, even though they would never agree to a BBB consistent with its instructions. Then, Republicans decided they would only seek to enact the new tax cuts Trump proposed during the 2024 election for four years — the same gimmick Democrats tried in 2021 to make their spending programs artificially appear cheaper. 

But Senate Republicans are simultaneously trying to employ a dangerous new gimmick that undermines not just the credibility of the previous one but also the foundation of the Congressional budget process: claiming that extending any policy currently scheduled to expire should be scored as costless. As I and a bipartisan group of budget experts recently warned in a letter to Congress, this approach would enable future Congress to enact a massive policy for one year, then proceed to make it permanent in the second year while pretending it’s completely free. If Republicans rely upon this unprecedented maneuver to pass their BBB, they will be responsible not only for trillions of dollars the legislation itself adds to the debt, but also the tens of trillions they’ve invited future Congresses to pile on.

A PROBLEM OF ATTITUDE MORE THAN MAGNITUDE

Defenders of Biden’s economic management will argue that most of the inflation that materialized during his presidency was due to COVID-related supply chain disruptions and other factors outside Democrats’ control. Indeed, several analyses have concluded that Democrats’ fiscal policies added up to 3 percentage points to inflation in 2021 — that’s a significant contribution, but ultimately, not even a majority of the inflation experienced that year.

The biggest problem for Democrats wasn’t that they got the policy wrong. Rather, it was that they repeatedly demonstrated disinterest in even trying to get it right — a mistake the Trump administration is now replicating to a tee.

Anyone who argued that no economic data justified the need for a $1.9 trillion package in early 2021 was met not with a substantive rebuttal but with a dismissive statement along the lines of “the cost of doing too little is much higher than the cost of doing something big.” It was very reasonable to believe that an overshoot was preferable to an undershoot of equal magnitude, considering that insufficient stimulus likely slowed the recovery following the 2008 financial crisis. But surely a package that was 2% too small would have been preferable to one that was 200% too large.

One might reasonably argue that it was sensible not to adjust policies to prevent significant inflation when decades had passed since that was last an issue in the United States. But when their assumptions proved wrong and inflation did materialize, most Democrats refused to accept that their policies could be responsible and needed to change. The Biden administration first argued that inflation would merely be “transitory.” Then, when that proved untenable, they sought to pass the buck by blaming “corporate greed” for inflation (as if corporations suddenly got greedier in 2021). 

Meanwhile, Democratic leaders did everything in their power to compound their mistakes. The version of BBB they passed through the House would have increased the federal budget deficit by roughly $200 billion in the first year alone. Biden later pursued costly executive actions such as trying to have taxpayers foot the bill for canceling as much student debt as possible, without any regard to the need or cost of such policies, and without doing anything to address the problems that created this debt in the first place. Progressives such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren even went so far as to pressure Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell — who was responsible for curtailing inflation by raising interest rates — to keep interest rates low. 

Donald Trump was elected in large part because of a backlash against this cavalier attitude. Yet as economists and business leaders have been sounding the alarm for months that their tax and trade policies will raise prices on American consumers, the Trump administration has responded almost exactly like Biden and his progressive allies did: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said inflation will be transitory. Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson threatened to investigate companies for raising prices. President Trump himself said the economic pain his policies cause are “worth the price that must be paid.” And now, he is pressuring Chairman Powell to cut interest rates. It is no wonder that Republicans’ approval ratings on the economy — which consistently outpaced those of their Democratic rivals throughout Trump’s first term and the 2024 election — now trail them.

WHY THIS TIME IS WORSE

When Biden’s Democrats increased budget deficits, they did so after a decade filled with warnings about the consequences of rising debt that never seemed to manifest even as the debt steadily grew higher and higher. But over the past four years, it’s become clear that those consequences are finally starting to materialize at great expense to the American people. Trump’s Republicans are thus inexcusably seeking to blow up budget deficits at a time when everyone understands that doing so is increasingly costly.

The combination of increased debt to finance borrowing under Biden and higher interest rates on that debt has pushed the federal government’s annual spending on interest to nearly $1 trillion. As a result, the federal government now spends more money paying interest on the national debt than it does on national defense or Medicaid. Measured as a percent of gross domestic product, annual interest costs are higher than at any other time in American history. And if Republicans enact Trump’s BBB, those costs are likely to more than double over the next 30 years.

As was the case under Biden, consumers will also bear the burden of this runaway borrowing. A recent analysis from Yale Budget Lab estimates that a permanent increase in deficits on the scale of what it would take just to make the expiring tax cuts from 2017 permanent would reduce real wealth by up to $36,000 per household over the next 30 years. This is effectively a tax on young Americans that cancels out most of the benefit they would receive from the GOP’s BBB itself.

Importantly, all these estimates are predicated on current economic assumptions that could swiftly change. Bond markets — which determine the interest rate at which the federal government can borrow money — have been increasingly volatile as investors express growing concern about the Trump administration’s economic agenda and its implications for the long-term health of the U.S. economy. If Congress simply adds the cost of extending the expiring tax cuts to the national credit card and interest rates are just one percentage point higher than currently estimated, the Congressional Budget Office projects that debt would rise so high that its model can no longer function. Put another way: passing Trump’s BBB could be the tipping point for not just higher inflation but an unprecedented economic disaster.

Voters made clear in their rejection of Democrats in 2024 that they prioritize controlling the cost of living above all else. If Republicans betray their electoral mandate by continuing to pursue a BBB that’s as bad or worse than the one pursued by their predecessors, they will hand Democrats a perfect chance to seize the political opportunity they’ve squandered. But to achieve a win more durable than a typical midterm backlash, Democrats will have to chart a new course that convinces voters they can be trusted not to repeat the fiscally irresponsible and inflationary policy mistakes that shaped the BBBs of both Biden and Trump.

GOP Defense Increase Gets Less for More

From our Budget Breakdown series highlighting problems in fiscal policy to inform the 2025 tax and budget debate.

Congressional Republicans returned to Washington this week to begin drafting sections of the “big beautiful bill” that contains the bulk of their legislative agenda. One of the first sections to be considered was their plan to increase defense spending by $150 billion over the next ten years. At a time of growing threats from China and Russia, the need for military readiness is clear. Yet this surge in defense funding comes amid a simultaneous push from the Trump administration to dismantle our global commitments, raising the fundamental question: what is the purpose of building up military power if the United States no longer intends to lead with it?

Top Republicans are heralding the proposed defense increase as a “generational upgrade” in our military readiness. While some provisions — such as the billions allocated for the so-called “Golden Dome” — appear to be driven more by Trump’s own personal fascination than strategic necessity, most of the spending increases are serious priorities to improve military readiness and capability. Amongst other worthwhile provisions, their plan earmarks billions for shipbuilding, ramps up munitions production, and scales up innovative commercial technologies for military use. One would reasonably expect that this investment into America’s national security would be used to reinforce our global leadership and international commitments.

But since returning to office, President Trump has done just the opposite, pursuing a chaotic foreign policy of disengagement and signaling that the United States will no longer meet its obligations to its allies and partners around the world. Trump has renewed attacks on NATO, explored reducing U.S. troop levels in both Europe and Asia, and steadily undermined security commitments to allies in Ukraine and Taiwan. His destabilizing trade wars have alienated key economic partners, while his erratic threats to annex Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal have only deepened tensions with long-standing allies. Finally, he has gutted vital tools of American soft power, decimating foreign aid and development programs such as USAID, sharply cutting US diplomatic presence in critical regions, and slashing funds for basic scientific research and development. With this chaotic foreign policy, it’s no surprise that global confidence in the United States has plummeted in the past few months.

Military capability is not an end in itself, but rather a tool to execute a broader, coherent strategy. The United States built its post-World War II military and defense posture not to act unilaterally, but to support a system of alliances, deterrence, and collective security that amplifies American power. In the absence of the trust, stability, and strategic advantages that this system provides, hundreds of billions more in defense spending will be far less effective at ensuring national security and advancing American interests. Furthermore, by alienating our allies, Trump is undercutting the military power we can call upon in a crisis — perhaps by more than the spending increases would augment it.

As PPI has previously argued, any greater investment in the U.S. military should go hand-in-hand with revitalizing our alliances, restoring global economic leadership, and strengthening our diplomatic and international development institutions. For all the Trump administration’s talk of cutting wasteful spending, there is no better example of government waste than spending more money on activities from which we intend to benefit less.

Deeper Dive

Fiscal Fact

During the first quarter of 2025, the economy shrank at a 0.3% annual rate — the largest decline in three years, driven by increased imports and the fear of Trump’s tariffs.

Further Reading

Other Fiscal News

More from PPI & The Center for Funding America’s Future

PPI Statement on President Trump’s Attacks on Fed Independence

WASHINGTON — Today, Paul Weinstein Jr., Senior Fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), issued the following statement in response to President Trump’s latest attacks on Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell and the independence of the central bank:

“President Trump’s social media post claiming Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell is ‘always TOO LATE AND WRONG,’ and his ‘termination cannot come fast enough!’ would be laughable if not for the fact that President Trump is clearly setting the stage to challenge the central bank’s independence in federal court. Under Powell’s leadership, the Fed has successfully brought down inflation from historically high levels while keeping the economy from falling into recession.

“Chairman Powell yesterday simply and factually observed that higher tariffs are likely to raise consumer prices and slow growth, which Trump himself has acknowledged in admitting that tariffs will cause ‘pain.’ Given President Trump’s reckless economic policies, including his misguided attempt to usurp Congress’ Constitutional tax authority and impose tariffs by decree, an independent Fed in control of monetary policy is more important than ever. Hopefully, Members of Congress and the federal courts will defend it.”

Founded in 1989, PPI is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Find an expert and learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Follow us @PPI

###

Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org

Congressional Republicans Take Dangerous Step Towards Ending Budget Enforcement

From our Budget Breakdown series highlighting problems in fiscal policy to inform the 2025 tax and budget debate.

For months, Republican leaders have sought to direct the official scorekeepers at the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to score their upcoming tax and spending bill against a “current policy” baseline. Unlike the standard “current law” baseline — which would force Republicans to grapple with the roughly $4.6 trillion that extending expiring tax cuts would add to the national debt over the next decade — a current policy baseline would make such legislation appear free. Senate Republicans had planned to make their case before the chamber’s parliamentarian to allow its use in the budget reconciliation process, which has strict rules about how much legislation can add to deficits. But late last week, Republicans abruptly dropped this plan, likely to avoid a negative ruling that derailed their efforts.  

Instead, they are now asserting an even broader power: claiming that the Senate Budget Committee Chairman has the final say in determining a legislation’s costs. Doing so would allow them to ignore the official, nonpartisan score provided by the CBO and simply fabricate their own budgetary score. Moreover, Senate Republicans are asserting that they can do this whether or not the parliamentarian has a chance to determine if such a move is permissible under Senate rules — effectively a “nuclear option” that would fundamentally reshape how the Senate works.  

Last week, PPI joined a dozen bipartisan budget experts — including four former Senate GOP staffers — to warn of the irreparable damage that this move would have on budget enforcement. The budget process depends on a credible and reliable accounting of a bill’s fiscal impact. If lawmakers can simply choose what counts as a cost and what doesn’t, this effectively nullifies all existing procedural mechanisms to enforce budget constraints. For example, budget rules currently prevent any bill passed using the filibuster-proof reconciliation process from adding to the deficit beyond the initial 10-year window. But this prohibition is one of many rules that becomes impossible to actually enforce if the chair can simply declare that a bill costs nothing and thus complies with them. 

Unfortunately, Senate Republicans are proceeding full-steam ahead despite the irreparable damage it would do to both their institution and the federal budget. And although a handful of self-proclaimed fiscal hawks in the House have expressed opposition to such costly shenanigans in the past, they ultimately folded and offered their approval by rubber-stamping the Senate’s budget resolution earlier today. If Republicans successfully pursue this plan to completion, they will be responsible not only for adding up to $5.8 trillion to the debt in the most expensive budget reconciliation bill ever passed but also for the tens of trillions of dollars they will open the door for future Congresses to add — all while pretending it costs nothing.

Deeper Dive

Fiscal Fact

Chinese imports to the United States, which make up nearly 17% of all U.S. imports, are now subject to a 54% 104% 125% tariff. This is likely the highest effective tariff rate ever imposed on a major U.S. trading partner.

Further Reading

Other Fiscal News

More from PPI & The Center for Funding America’s Future:

Read the full email and sign up to receive the Budget Breakdown.

CBO Reports Highlight How Unpaid-For TCJA Extension Would Hurt Our Economy

From our Budget Breakdown series highlighting problems in fiscal policy to inform the 2025 tax and budget debate.

Two reports published within the last week by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) highlight the explosive growth of our national debt and the economic harm it is likely to cause. 

On Thursday, CBO published its long-term budget outlook, which projects the federal budget out 30 years with the assumption that current laws remain unchanged. Under this scenario, the national debt as a percent of gross domestic product (GDP) would surpass the all-time high of 106% it reached at the end of World War 2 by the time President Trump leaves office. Between then and 2055, the debt would then grow another 50% relative to GDP.

These projections would be alarming enough on their own. But even more alarming was a special report CBO published the week before in response to an inquiry from Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.), who co-chairs the Congressional Joint Economic Committee. Schweikert asked CBO to project what would happen if Republicans made the expiring provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) permanent without offsetting the cost, which President Trump has made his top political priority. CBO’s answer: debt would more than double relative to GDP within the next 30 years. The annual budget deficit would also grow to 12.3% of GDP, which is nearly twice today’s level and four times the level it was when President Trump took office in his first term.

Schweikert also asked CBO to model a scenario under which interest rates were higher than expected, which could very well happen given that 1) the Trump administration’s tariffs and other misguided economic policies are keeping inflation above the Federal Reserve’s target and 2) our country has never experienced debt or chronic deficits anywhere close to the levels currently projected. Under a scenario in which average interest rates are just one percentage point above current projections scenario, CBO projects debt would grow to more than 250% of GDP — a level so high that the agency’s models ceased to function.

Republicans have argued that they must extend the expiring TCJA provisions because they would boost economic growth. But CBO estimates that doing so would actually shrink the economy by nearly 2 percentage points over the 30-year window. And in the “higher interest rates” scenario, the damage would be roughly double (before CBO’s model crashes). CBO’s reports make clear that slowing the unsustainable rise of our national debt — not accelerating it with unfunded tax cuts — is the key to economic growth.

Deeper Dive

Fiscal Fact

CBO projects the Social Security trust funds will be exhausted in just 9 years. If no action is taken before 2034, benefits will automatically be cut across the board by at least 21%.

Further Reading

Other Fiscal News

More from PPI & The Center for Funding America’s Future

Read the full email and sign up to receive the Budget Breakdown.

Trump Cuts to R&D Jeopardize Innovation

From our Budget Breakdown series highlighting problems in fiscal policy to inform the 2025 tax and budget debate.

When the Trump administration moved this week to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Research and Development, which is responsible for producing objective research on a wide array of environmental pollutants, it claimed to do so in the name of improving government efficiency. But the long list of cuts to federal science funding pursued by the administration will ultimately undermine one of the government’s most successful endeavors and leave the country ill-prepared to maintain its position as the world’s leader of innovation.

Alongside the EPA, several other federal agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and NASA, have all been targeted for budget cuts. While many of these cuts have been mass layoffs of federal scientists, including nearly 1,200 of the EPA’s biologists, chemists, and toxicologists, some have been policy changes impacting the broader research ecosystem. At NIH, the administration has moved to cap support for “indirect research costs,” which cover expenses ranging from facility fees to administrative costs, at 15% of a grant’s value. 

The research ecosystem in the United States is far from perfect. Many universities have increased administrative bloat over the past several decades that risks cutting into the efficiency of genuine research activities. Several university grant recipients have routinely negotiated reimbursement for indirect costs as high as 70% of the grant’s overall research value. Although some of these indirect costs include critical funding for maintaining high-tech laboratories and other legitimate expenses, high overhead diverts resources away from dollars that could have been used more efficiently as true R&D spending. A thoughtful audit to ensure that taxpayer money is being effectively allocated toward research activities, rather than avoidable administrative costs, is absolutely warranted.

But these rapid and sweeping cuts are far from this measured approach, causing unnecessary chaos, jeopardizing projects that may have otherwise led to vital breakthroughs, and indiscriminately eliminating skilled researchers. For example, the 15% cap at NIH is only around half of what grantees typically negotiated in the past. In response, top research universities and institutions have frozen hiring, laid off staff, and even trimmed research projects on cancer and Alzheimers. Meanwhile at NOAA, the hundreds of positions eliminated at the National Weather Service risks compromising the accuracy of weather data that everyone from researchers to local weather channels rely upon.

The federal government’s support for research is foundational for innovation from businesses. While the private sector often funds “applied” research and development, which can be quickly commercialized and profited from, the government’s primary responsibility is to fund “basic” research, which forms the foundation of knowledge for all other technological and scientific progress. This type of research often requires sustained long-term investment and the benefits can often accrue to entities other than the one that funds it, which often makes it too risky for private companies to pursue on their own. Federally funded research has been a critical building block for countless innovations, including mRNA vaccines, the internet, GPS, and even Ozempic. In addition, the government can enable research even when not directly funding it by collecting and sharing vital information, such as weather and disease data.

These federal investments drive economic growth and improve American lives. According to one study by the Dallas Federal Reserve, every federal dollar invested in non-defense R&D yields between 140% and 210% in economic benefits. In certain projects, these returns are even higher: One study of NIH’s Human Genome Project estimated that it generated an astonishing $178 for every $1 spent, resulting in nearly $1 trillion of additional economic growth. 

Instead of further cuts that undermine this innovation and growth, policymakers should be working to reverse the decline in federal R&D investment, which has dropped precipitously over the past few decades when measured as a share of the overall economy. Today, public R&D spending is only around half of its historical average and nearly a quarter from its peak set during the space race. 

Continuing to cut support would risk losing that status to competitors such as China, which over the past few decades has been increasing R&D spending at a much faster rate than the United States. Already, both China and Europe are seeking to capitalize on the administration’s decisions by enticing top science talent to join them abroad. The United States has long been a global leader in research and innovation, but if Trump continues to make reckless cuts to the science ecosystem, we risk watching that leadership slip away.

Deeper Dive

Fiscal Fact

This week, the Federal Reserve gave its first updated economic projections since Trump came into office. Due to the impact of tariffs and increased economic uncertainty, Fed officials projected that real GDP growth this year would be much lower than expected — only 1.7% compared to the 2.1% predicted in December — while inflation and unemployment would be higher.

Further Reading

Other Fiscal News

More from PPI & The Center for Funding America’s Future

Read the full email and sign up to receive the Budget Breakdown.

Continuing Resolutions Are Bad Budgeting

From our Budget Breakdown series highlighting problems in fiscal policy to inform the 2025 tax and budget debate.

House Republicans voted earlier this week on a continuing resolution (CR) that would continue the previous year’s funding levels through the end of the current fiscal year. If passed by the Senate and signed by the president, this would mark the first time since the establishment of the modern budget process that Congress failed to pass any new appropriations legislation for a full year. Although CRs can be a necessary bridge when lawmakers fall behind schedule in crafting appropriations bills, the increasing reliance on them reflects a broken approach to budgeting that undermines effective governance and leads to more wasteful spending. 

The 1974 Budget Act that established the modern budget process requires Congress to pass appropriations bills that fund discretionary spending before the start of each fiscal year on October 1. But lawmakers have only managed to meet that deadline three times in the past 48 years — and not once since 1997. Instead, Congress has come to rely on CRs, often passing multiple in a single year, to keep the government running.

CRs lock spending levels and priorities into the most previously passed budget and limit agencies to current operational expenses — even when they no longer make any sense. This creates dysfunction and waste across federal agencies, as programs that don’t need resources receive them, while others that might need more resources don’t receive them. Under past CRs, these rigid funding levels have threatened a myriad of important programs or policies, including the military’s ability to pay recruitment bonuses to new enlistees, the availability of food assistance for low-income families, and the ability of Customs and Border Patrol to retain their staff. While Congress tries to address this operational inflexibility through multiple small adjustments — known as “anomalies” — it is a far less comprehensive change than a typical appropriations process would entail. 

To cope with the constant uncertainty surrounding funding, agencies must repeatedly adjust their work and budget plans to match unclear parameters, wasting valuable time and resources that could be directed toward more productive efforts. In one case, staff for a program that provides energy assistance for struggling households was forced to instead spend their time constantly updating its funding formula — once for every CR that year and again when appropriations bills were actually passed. More critically, because they are bound by outdated funding directives, agencies are unable to plan for future needs or respond effectively to emerging challenges. This is particularly problematic for agencies like the Department of Defense (DOD), where long-term planning is essential to maintaining national security and military readiness.

While CRs create a number of complications for agencies, they also paradoxically empower the executive branch to adjust funding within those constraints. Unlike typical appropriations bills, CRs do not come with an explanatory document from Congress that explains how the budget’s many vague line items are intended to be used. Therefore, the executive branch has far more leeway to adjust spending priorities and interpret vague spending provisions in ways that they see fit. By passing a CR that strengthens the executive branch’s fiscal power, Congress is delegating a key part of its constitutional authority to the already powerful executive branch.

Congressional Republicans, who at every turn seem eager to bend the knee to Donald Trump, may view this transfer of authority from Congress to the president as a feature rather than a bug. But in stark contrast to their rhetoric about restoring fiscal discipline, passing a CR for the full fiscal year instead of any normal appropriations will only perpetuate dysfunction and wasteful spending. Senate Democrats are right to withhold their support and push for a better alternative, even if they ultimately feel forced to vote for the bill as the only viable option Republicans give them for preventing a costly government shutdown.

Deeper Dive

Fiscal Fact

Since the modern federal budget process was established in 1974, the federal government has only shut down two times during a period when one party had unified control of the House, Senate, and the presidency. Both those shutdowns occurred when Republicans had unified control during Donald Trump’s first term.

Further Reading

Other Fiscal News

More from PPI & The Center for Funding America’s Future

Read the full email and sign up to receive the Budget Breakdown.

Baseline Gimmickry Doesn’t Erase Costs

From our Budget Breakdown series highlighting problems in fiscal policy to inform the 2025 tax and budget debate.

Senate Republicans and “moderate” House Republicans who are uncomfortable with the $4.5 trillion cost of extending the expiring tax cuts enacted during Trump’s first term are pushing a new strategy: pretend it is free. Normally, the cost of legislation is measured as the amount passing the legislation would increase the deficit relative to a scenario where the legislation did not pass, which is known as a “current law” baseline. But Republicans instead want to score their upcoming tax bill against a “current policy” baseline that assumes every policy in effect today continues in perpetuity.

Although advocates of this approach suggest it would “zero out” the cost of extending expiring tax cuts, the reality is that it would do nothing to change the actual cost. If Republicans pass a bill with policies that are “fully offset” relative to current policy, the national debt as a percent of gross domestic product would increase by nearly twice as much compared to if they did nothing.

Aside from helping Republicans justify their budget-busting plans to themselves and the public, adopting a current policy baseline could potentially clear some legislative procedural hurdles. Budget reconciliation bills, which can be passed by a simple majority in the Senate without being subject to a filibuster, are not allowed to increase deficits over 10 years by more than the amount permitted in a previously-passed budget resolution. These constraints are the reason Republicans scheduled many tax cuts to expire at the end of this year when they passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017.

By using a current policy baseline – instead of the current law baseline used in 2017 and for every other piece of legislation – Republicans are hoping to hide the true cost of extension so they can bypass reconciliation constraints and clear the path for their legislative agenda. Most experts believe budget rules do not allow lawmakers to subjectively select their preferred baseline like this. But if Republicans are somehow able to do so, either by exploiting legal loopholes or overruling the Senate parliamentarian, the results could annihilate any fiscal guardrails in future legislative debates.

Consider this scenario: After enacting the American Rescue Plan in 2021, which cost $1.9 trillion compared to a current law baseline, Democrats could have said that not extending the law’s one-time spending provisions would “save” up to nearly $20 trillion over the following decade compared to a current policy baseline. They could then have used these phony savings as an “offset” for a bill four times as expensive as Joe Biden’s original “Build Back Better” plan. Effectively, Republicans would be setting a precedent that enables far-left Democrats to enact prohibitively expensive proposals like the Green New Deal or Medicare-for-All and claim they cost virtually nothing, even as the national debt would balloon.

Some Republicans have argued that making tax cuts permanent is so important for economic growth that the benefits of extending them should outweigh any potential consequences. But according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, extending the tax cuts without offsets would be unlikely to generate any long-term economic growth at all – and could even reduce it, as higher borrowing costs outweigh any positive economic impact. Moreover, when the federal budget is on such an obviously unsustainable trajectory, no fiscal policy can be considered permanent. At some point in the not-too-distant future, some combination of tax and spending policies that currently have no expiration date will have to change to prevent, or react to, an economic crisis caused by exploding debt. If Republicans really wanted their tax cuts to be permanent, they would figure out how to pay for them.

Deeper Dive

Fiscal Fact

Under a current policy baseline, the national debt will increase by more than $26 trillion over the next 10 years.

Further Reading

Other Fiscal News

More from PPI & The Center for Funding America’s Future

Read the full email and sign up to receive the Budget Breakdown.

IRS Layoffs Threaten to Inject Chaos Into Tax Filing Season and Cost Taxpayers Billions

From our Budget Breakdown series highlighting problems in fiscal policy to inform the 2025 tax and budget debate.

The Trump administration is laying off thousands of employees at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), just as tax season gets underway. These cuts will worsen customer service for millions of hardworking taxpayers as they try to comply with the law. And while the cuts make it harder for Americans to follow the law, it will empower those who break it, allowing tax cheats to continue avoiding paying their fair share.

Many of the 6,700 IRS staffers laid off were recent hires tasked with improving the agency’s poor responsiveness by answering phone calls, processing tax refunds, and assisting with filing. Cutting this staff at the beginning of tax season will reverse recent improvements at a time when households need the most tax help. And with even larger layoffs planned after tax season, the administration will set the stage for even more chaos in future tax seasons.             

The administration claims to be making these cuts in the name of improving government efficiency and reducing waste. However, it is actually more likely to increase budget deficits by undermining efforts to close the “tax gap” — the difference between what taxpayers owe and what the IRS actually collects.

There are two main causes of the tax gap: well-intentioned taxpayers misunderstanding their obligations, and malicious tax cheats actively working to evade their obligations. The Inflation Reduction Act included additional funding for customer service to assist the former and enforcement to crack down on the latter, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office originally estimated would generate $180 billion in additional revenue over the next decade. These expected savings have already declined somewhat due to funding recissions, and laying off newly-hired auditors and customer support staff will go even further, potentially preventing the agency from realizing any savings at all. 

Like any large agency, there is clearly room for the IRS to improve, including by modernizing its outdated technology or simplifying a complex tax filing process. But rather than work to truly make the IRS more efficient to save taxpayers money, Trump’s layoffs instead cost the Treasury billions in foregone revenue and taxpayers millions of hours in compliance headaches. While this is great news for tax cheats seeking to evade their responsibilities, it will hurt the law-abiding American businesses and households who will be left to pick up the tab.  

Deeper Dive

Fiscal Fact

The current U.S. Tariff schedule, which specifies the goods subject to tariffs and the rates they face, already has roughly 11,000 lines. Trump’s proposal to move to a reciprocal tariff system, where every imported good faces a tariff equal to the rate that the same American good would face if exported to its country of origin, would require an exponential expansion to at least 3.1 million lines. 

Further Reading

Other Fiscal News
More from PPI & The Center for Funding America’s Future

Child Opportunity Accounts Would Expand Opportunity and Financial Capability for American Children

Economic policy debates in recent years have increasingly focused on how to better support children and families. One of the central proposals in these discussions is expanding the Child Tax Credit (CTC), which will be a key feature in the current debate over the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. This tax benefit helps working parents by providing them with additional resources to cover everyday costs, which can significantly improve the lives of disadvantaged children by meeting their basic needs.

However, while the CTC provides important short-term assistance to parents, it does less to ensure children can access opportunities for long-term success. Many children from low-income families face barriers to building wealth, such as limited income or job opportunities. Additionally, a lack of financial literacy often makes it even harder for these children to make informed decisions about managing money, impeding their ability to effectively plan for the future or continue building wealth over time. Together, this combination of limited opportunity and financial capability can trap many Americans into lower economic positions, regardless of their talent or potential.

In a recent report, “Building Opportunity and Financial Capability with Child Opportunity Accounts,” PPI proposed to help increase financial resources and financial capability for children from all backgrounds by establishing universal Child Opportunity Accounts (COAs). COAs would automatically be opened at birth with a $700 contribution from the government, with the government making supplemental contributions depending on household income each year on the child’s birthday up to age 16. This progressive approach ensures that children from families struggling to make ends meet get the most help, while still offering modest support to children born in more well-off households. In addition to the contributions from the government, families are also encouraged to participate by contributing to their child’s COA.

Account balances would be automatically invested in diversified portfolios, growing over time to give each child a financial cushion when they enter adulthood. By the time they reach 18, a child from a low-income family could have tens of thousands of dollars in their account to use for wealth-building activities — including education, housing, or starting a business — and guardrails in place to ensure that the money does not go to waste.

 These accounts do not just provide resources for children but also foster the skills they need to grow those resources over time. Financial education resources would be embedded into the accounts and beneficiaries would have to pass an assessment to access their account’s funds before age 25. As children grow, they would learn to manage their own finances and gain more control over their financial future.

To ensure that the burden of rising public debt doesn’t negate the benefit of COAs for young Americans, PPI has offered a comprehensive fiscal blueprint with several policy options to fully offset the program’s cost. One particularly fitting offset included in the blueprint and further detailed in another recent PPI report would be reforming the taxation of inheritances. Taxing the birthrights of the richest 1% to give every child an equal starting point would help create a more inclusive society where everyone, regardless of their background, has access to the resources and opportunities necessary for success. But PPI’s blueprint also offers several dozen potential alternatives if this offset proves politically challenging for one reason or another.

America’s economic future depends on its ability to foster talent, not just in its wealthiest citizens, but across the socioeconomic spectrum. Providing for a child’s basic needs, while important, does little to set them up for success in adulthood. Investing in Child Opportunity Accounts would ensure that every child, regardless of background, has the financial foundation and knowledge they need to pursue their full potential. This isn’t just an investment in individual families, but in our country’s future prosperity.

Tariffs Are Bad Taxes

From our Budget Breakdown series highlighting problems in fiscal policy to inform the 2025 tax and budget debate.

Both on the campaign trail and in his time as president, Donald Trump has hailed tariffs as “the greatest thing ever invented.” There’s seemingly no problem these taxes on imports can’t solve: paying for his legislative agendaclosing trade deficitsexacting diplomatic concessions, and more. Yet, in reality, the tariffs Trump began enacting this week are bad tax policy that don’t raise much revenue but do raise costs for American businesses and households.

This week began with Trump announcing his intent to impose a 25% tariff on goods from Canada and Mexico and an additional 10% tariff on goods from China. The new tariffs on China went into effect on Tuesday, while those on Mexico and Canada were only temporarily delayed after last-second agreements with their respective leaders. Together, Mexico, China, and Canada make up a substantial amount of U.S. trade — roughly 44% of all imported goods — with important imports ranging from oil and lumber to computers and produce. And this is likely to only be the beginning of Trump’s trade wars, as he’s promised to impose similar measures on the European Union, which represents another 17% of imported goods.

There are plenty of serious problems with these aimless and destructive tariff policies. By targeting Canada and EU allies, the United States is eroding vital diplomatic partnerships at a time when it should be strengthening them to counter rising threats from Russia, China, and Iran. These unilateral tariffs also represent a blatant disregard for the U.S. Constitution, which clearly assigns the power to levy taxes to Congress, not the president. By circumventing the legislative process to impose sweeping tax hikes, Trump is concentrating power in the executive and diminishing the fiscal checks and balances essential for our democracy.

But beyond these grave concerns, tariffs are simply bad tax policy. One of Trump’s central justifications for the new tariffs is that they will raise revenue that can be used to offset cuts to other taxes — even suggesting that they could replace income taxes entirely. But estimates for this latest round of tariffs show that, if implemented, they would raise only $1.3 trillion over ten years. That is less than one-third of what it would cost to extend the expiring provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act over the same period. Even if Trump imposed tariffs on all imported goods at the revenue-maximizing rate — estimated to be around 50% — they would likely still be insufficient to finance the full Trump agenda that some Republicans have estimated could cost as much as $10 trillion, much less replace the roughly $35 trillion the income tax will raise over the next ten years.

Not only do tariffs raise less revenue than income taxes, they do so in a way that is less fair. The tariff schedule currently has over 11,000 different rates depending on the type of good, its composition, and the county of origin. This complexity invites special interest carveouts and results in disproportionately higher tariffs on the goods that lower- and middle-income households consume. For example, expensive silver spoons currently face much lower tariffs than steel spoons, and cheaper clothing made from polyester and wool faces higher tariffs than more luxurious counterparts such as silk or cashmere. Well-resourced lobbyists and businesses are already seeking to carve out their own exemptions from Trump’s new tariffs, leaving the remainder of Americans with higher tariff rates.

The American people will pay the price for such bad tax policy. Businesses that rely on imported goods or components would face higher input costs for production. These higher costs would then be passed down to consumers in the form of higher prices, raising the cost of everyday goods, from food to clothing to gas. Tariffs would also harm export-reliant industries — such as agriculture, energy, and manufacturing — by strengthening the dollar and inviting retaliatory measures, thereby lowering demand for American goods overseas. Overall, estimates suggest that these measures could hike taxes on the average American household by nearly $1,000 while the resulting decline in economic output could eliminate 330,000 jobs.

Rather than foster economic growth and prosperity, tariffs create economic uncertainty and chaos. If Trump continues to lean on them as his favorite policy tool, he will unnecessarily burden American households and cause massive economic disruptions for businesses. Instead of standing idly by to enable aimless trade wars, Congress should look to the alternative trade agenda recently outlined by PPI, which focuses on lowering costs for Americans, promoting the global competitiveness of U.S. industry, and strengthening vital partnerships abroad.

Deeper Dive

Other Fiscal News

More from PPI & The Center for Funding America’s Future

Trump’s Federal Workforce Orders Unleash Chaos Without Meaningful Savings

From our Budget Breakdown series highlighting problems in fiscal policy to inform the 2025 tax and budget debate.

President Trump spent the first full week of his second term in office rolling out a series of executive actions aimed at radically reshaping the federal workforce. While the administration framed the moves as a fiscally responsible culling of a bloated bureaucracy, they will, in reality, hinder critical government responsibilities, create uncertainty for both Americans and civil servants, and may even cost taxpayers more than they save. Ultimately, these chaotic measures are more about politicizing the federal workforce to advance the president’s extreme ideological agenda than they are about improving government efficiency for taxpayers.

Trump’s sweeping executive actions have cut deeply across the entire federal workforce. He has imposed a general hiring freeze across most federal civilian positions and demanded that agencies submit plans for reducing the size of their workforce. He has moved to dismantle any program that could be construed as related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), directing all affiliated staff to be put on paid leave and eventually laid off. He fired senior officials that he deemed insufficiently loyal to the administration, including inspectors general and federal prosecutors that traditionally operate with independence. And earlier this week, he offered to pay eight months’ salary to any of the 2.3 million individuals employed by the federal government if they agree to resign by February 6 — adding that agencies “are likely to be downsized” if people choose to remain.

This flood of orders has sowed chaos and confusion across the government. Agencies are unsure what programs and personnel are impacted by the vaguely worded directives, while demoralized civil servants wonder whether their roles will be eliminated as they try to manage day-to-day operations. And like the president’s short-lived order to freeze wide swaths of federal spending, many of these efforts are legally dubious. Agencies can only offer severance payments in lump sums of up to $25,000 — a number that most buyouts under this order would likely exceed. The president is also required to give Congress at least 30 days advance notice and written justification for firing inspectors general, which Trump’s purge blatantly ignored.

But even if these moves are legal, they will still wreak havoc on critical government functions while likely costing taxpayers more than they save. Not all the workers who would accept the Trump buyout offer are contributing to wasteful spending; many are talented civil servants doing critical functions of government work that the administration ostensibly supports, including air traffic control, cybersecurity, and law enforcement — including those implementing the president’s immigration priorities. Replacing these workers or retraining existing civil servants to do their jobs would take time and come at a significant cost to both effective governance and American taxpayers, as replacements would lack the experience of former employees and could lead to the delay or degradation of important federal programs and services that many Americans rely upon.

Even worse, these responsibilities might ultimately be reassigned to employees hired not for their qualifications but their unquestioning loyalty to the president, or to an even more bloated system of expensive federal contractors that is estimated to be at least twice the size of the federal workforce. Purging inspectors general is especially irresponsible, because these are individuals primarily responsible and best-equipped to identify waste or fraud in their respective agencies. Removing them not only increases the risk of fraudulent or wasteful spending, but diminishes their political independence to act as agency watchdogs.

Furthermore, payrolls are only a fraction of government spending, meaning that reducing them wouldn’t meaningfully improve the bleak fiscal situation highlighted in last week’s Budget Breakdown. In 2024, the federal government ran a $1.9 trillion budget deficit but spends less than $300 billion on civilian payrolls annually. In other words, even if every single civilian government employee accepted Trump’s buy-out proposal — and doing so did nothing to compromise government functions — the federal budget deficit would shrink by less than one-sixth. Moreover, those savings would be wiped out if Republicans proceed with their plans to extend the expiring provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act enacted in Trump’s first term, which are projected to cost more than $4 trillion over the next 10 years.

None of these arguments are meant to defend an ossified status quo in need of reform. It has now been more than three decades since President Bill Clinton undertook the last major effort to reinvent government, meaning a well-intentioned re-evaluation of how the sprawling federal bureaucracy of agencies, personnel, and programs could be streamlined to cut costs and better serve the American people is long overdue. But rather than pursuing any thoughtful reforms, Trump’s flood of directives reflects a ham-fisted attempt to dismantle checks and balances, purge the civil service of those he considers disloyal, and chaotically push an extreme ideological agenda at the expense of both American taxpayers and effective governance.

Deeper Dive

Other Fiscal News

More from PPI & The Center for Funding America’s Future

Trump Inherits a Broken Fiscal Policy He Seems Determined to Make Worse

From our Budget Breakdown series highlighting problems in fiscal policy to inform the 2025 tax and budget debate.

When Donald Trump began his second presidency earlier this week, he took the helm of a government running an annual budget deficit twice as big as the one Barack Obama left him eight years ago. Unfortunately, Trump and his Republican allies in Congress seem determined to expedite the breakdown of our country’s fiscal foundation by pursuing an extension and expansion of the budget-busting tax cuts they passed in his first term alongside irresponsible spending policies. To help inform the debate around these policies over the coming months, PPI’s Center for Funding America’s Future is launching Budget Breakdown, a new series that breaks down for our followers the many problems facing fiscal policymakers.

The latest budget and economic outlook published last week by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) made clear the daunting fiscal challenges facing the new administration. This year, CBO projects the federal government will spend almost $1.9 trillion more than it raises in revenue. That deficit equals 6.2% of gross domestic product (GDP), which is twice the size of the federal budget deficit in Fiscal Year 2016.

The borrowing required to finance this deficit will bring our national debt to 100% of GDP, meaning that our government will owe lenders an amount equal to the total value of all goods and services produced by the U.S. economy in a single year. And the government will spend nearly $1 trillion just to pay interest on that debt — more than it spends on either national defense or Medicare. To further put this enormous cost in perspective: whether measured in dollars or as a percent of GDP, the federal government is now spending more money servicing our national debt than at any other point in American history.

Each of these already alarming figures will likely worsen if Trump and Congressional Republicans get their way. The GOP’s top priority is extending the expiring provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act they passed in 2017, which by itself could add up to $5 trillion to budget deficits over the next 10 years. But the new president also wants to cut taxes even further, such as by increasing the amount of state and local taxes that high-income households can deduct from their federal income taxes and exempting all tip income from federal taxation. At the same time, he has proposed to massively increase spending on immigration enforcement, national defense, and other conservative priorities. While the exact details of their ambitious legislative plans remain fluid, some House Republicans have estimated that the price tag for Trump’s full agenda could run as high as $10 trillion over the 10-year budget window.

Even if Republicans curtail their ambitions, it’s highly unlikely that they could fully offset the costs of whatever policies they do enact. Trump repeatedly ruled out any reforms to Social Security and Medicare, the two largest and fastest-growing federal programs, leaving just one-third of federal spending going to programs for which he has neither proposed to maintain or increase spending. When House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington circulated a preliminary menu of potential offsets totaling $5.7 trillion to his colleagues earlier this month, several members quickly concluded most of the options were politically unrealistic even though they conformed to Trump’s demands. It’s not hard to see why: to take just one example, 40% of the possible savings were from cuts to Medicaid — a popular program that provides health care to low-income Americans and represents less than 10% of federal spending.

Republicans had no qualms about increasing the deficit in Trump’s first term, during which the president enacted policies that increased budget deficits over CBO’s 10-year budget window by more than $8 trillion — nearly $5 trillion of which was unrelated to the COVID pandemic. But the consequences of more borrowing today are likely to be far worse than they were four years ago. Americans saw firsthand how trillions of dollars in deficit-financed spending during the Biden administration helped push prices and interest rates to their highest levels in decades. Further deficit spending could easily reignite inflation and hamper long-run growth by crowding out both public and private investment, sticking future workers with higher tax bills, and diminishing our fiscal reserve to address future crises. Already, CBO projects that rising debt would reduce incomes 30 years from now by up to $14,500 per person, in today’s dollars. If Trump and Congressional Republicans deficit-finance their agenda, they will further increase these costs for working Americans now and in the future.

Deeper Dive

Further Reading

More Fiscal News

More from PPI & The Center for Funding America’s Future

Read the full email and sign up for the Budget Breakdown.

Ritz for Forbes: Trump’s Debt-Ceiling Demand Signals A Return To Chaotic Governance

Shortly after House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and his Democratic counterparts announced a bipartisan deal to prevent a government shutdown at midnight on Saturday, the MAGA movement tore it apart and sent the federal government hurtling towards a holiday shutdown.

Although many far-right Republicans grumbled from the get-go, Johnson’s problem really began when billionaire Elon Musk launched into a thread on the social media app formerly known as Twitter excoriating the details of the bill. Although there were many provisions of questionable merit attached to the continuing resolution that would keep the government operating until next March, Musk’s thread was full of misinformation and falsehoods — a problem that has always plagued the platform and become even worse since he took ownership of it in 2022.

President-elect Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance then issued a joint statement announcing their opposition to the legislation, effectively killing any chance it had of passing the Republican-controlled House with less than 48 hours to prevent a government shutdown. It’s worth remembering that the last time Republicans had unified control of the House, Senate, and Presidency, the federal government shut down three times in just one year — more than any other year in the preceding four decades. If Donald Trump and his billionaire backer Elon Musk are so quick to undermine legislation negotiated by their own party’s House speaker, who has a far narrower majority to work with than his predecessor did in 2018, the country is likely to be in for uniquely high levels of government dysfunction over the next two years.

Keep reading in Forbes.