A recent analysis suggests that the national debt could experience an increase under a potential presidency led by Kamala Harris, but it would surge even higher under the administration of Donald Trump. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget released a report on Monday outlining these projections, causing concern over the future economic impacts of the candidates’ proposed policies.
According to the analysis, Kamala Harris’s economic plans could potentially add $3.5 trillion to the national debt over a 10-year period. Despite assurances from the vice president’s campaign that investments in the middle class and housing would be balanced by increased taxes on corporations and the wealthy, the report indicates a substantial shortfall in funding to cover the proposed initiatives. On the other hand, Donald Trump’s proposals are estimated to potentially increase the national debt by $7.5 trillion, with a worst-case scenario suggesting a staggering increase of up to $15.2 trillion.
The report underscores the pressing issue of government borrowing that the winner of the upcoming election will face, as the total federal debt held by the public has already exceeded $28 billion and continues to rise. Highlighting the growing costs of social programs like Social Security and Medicare, the analysis emphasises that the expenses related to servicing the national debt now outweigh other key areas like national defense and healthcare for the elderly.
While neither candidate has made budget deficit reduction a focal point of their campaigns, various economic analyses indicate a significant disparity in their approaches to fiscal responsibility. Experts like Harvard University professor Jason Furman suggest that Harris’s proposals could either reduce deficits by $1.5 trillion or increase them by the same amount. In contrast, they estimate that Trump’s policies may lead to a $5 trillion increase in deficits.
Additional assessments from The Budget Lab at Yale and the Penn Wharton Budget Model support the notion that Harris is more inclined towards deficit control compared to Trump. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget’s analysis points to a potential $3.5 trillion rise in the national debt by 2035 under Harris’s policies, driven by proposed tax reductions but not fully offset by increased taxes on corporations and the wealthy.
In contrast, Trump’s plans rely heavily on tariff revenues to fund a range of expenditures, leading to a projected $7.5 trillion increase in the national debt if implemented. However, alternative scenarios presented in the analysis outline even higher potential deficits under Trump, depending on factors like tariff revenues and additional expenses such as border security and deportation costs. Ultimately, the competing economic visions of the two candidates pose significant implications for the country’s long-term financial health and stability.