A pair of recent studies suggest that former President Donald Trump’s economic proposals may dramatically raise the U.S. debt and lead to higher costs for most Americans, according to a report by Andrew Duehren and Alan Rappeport for The New York Times (NYT).
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) estimates that Trump’s plans could add up to $15 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, nearly double the amount projected for Vice President Kamala Harris’s economic plans, per the NYT article. In addition, an analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) indicates that Trump’s tax and tariff policies would disproportionately benefit the wealthiest Americans, leaving others to bear higher costs.
The NYT notes that while the CRFB’s report focuses on the long-term cost of both candidates’ tax and spending plans, ITEP’s analysis hones in on the immediate impact of Trump’s tax and tariff proposals in 2026. Together, these studies show that Trump’s agenda may be regressive, placing a heavier financial burden on lower-income households. Trump’s proposed broad tariffs on nearly all U.S. imports and his extension of tax breaks for the highest earners form the core of these plans, according to the NYT.
Trump’s tax proposals include exempting overtime pay, tips, and Social Security benefits from taxation, which the NYT points out could incentivize wealthier individuals to exploit tax breaks. While these tax cuts would provide benefits across all income groups, the ITEP study highlights that the resulting tariffs would increase the cost of goods and services, disproportionately impacting lower-income Americans who spend a larger share of their income on essential items like groceries and clothing.
The NYT highlights that the CRFB’s estimates show Trump’s proposals could add $15 trillion to the U.S. debt over ten years, while Harris’s plans are projected to increase it by $8 trillion. Even in a midrange scenario, Trump’s policies could purportedly add $7.5 trillion to the national debt. On the low end, Harris’s plan is considered “deficit neutral,” meaning it would not add to the debt.
A critical concern, as pointed out by the NYT, is Trump’s proposed tariffs, which could create additional costs for American consumers. The ITEP analysis found that Trump’s tariffs could amount to a 20% tax on all imports, with a 60% tariff specifically on Chinese goods. The NYT reports that these tariffs would cost the bottom 20% of American earners an additional 4.8% of their income, while the richest 1% would see tax reductions averaging $36,320 per year.
While Trump argues that his tariffs would only affect companies operating abroad, the NYT notes that numerous economic studies suggest that these costs are passed down to American consumers. Trump’s team has defended his economic proposals, claiming that tariffs would help reduce the deficit by generating revenue.
The NYT report also mentions that neither Trump nor Harris has made deficit reduction a central part of their campaigns, with both candidates prioritizing tax cuts and new spending plans. The rising U.S. debt, currently nearing $36 trillion, has already led to interest payments that outstrip spending on military and social safety net programs, says the NYT.
Featured Image via Pixabay
