A new analysis from the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) reveals that both Kamala Harris’ and Donald Trump’s economic plans could significantly increase the national debt over the next decade, despite their contrasting approaches. Released on Monday, the report projects a $3.5 trillion increase in national debt under a Harris presidency and an even larger $7.5 trillion rise under a Trump administration, with the potential to swell up to $15.2 trillion.
This analysis complicates both candidates’ claims of fiscal responsibility. Harris has repeatedly stated that her plans for middle-class investments, affordable housing, and infrastructure would be fully offset by higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy. Meanwhile, Trump asserts that economic growth under his policies would be so robust that deficits would no longer be a concern. However, the CRFB’s findings paint a different picture, suggesting that neither candidate’s platform will bring the national debt under control.
Harris’ economic plan: Higher spending, modest offsets
Kamala Harris has positioned herself as a champion of the middle class, pledging to use tax hikes on corporations and the ultra-wealthy to fund an array of programs. Her policy agenda includes significant investments in education, housing, childcare, and infrastructure. Harris’ campaign has repeatedly emphasized her commitment to fiscal responsibility, insisting that her spending initiatives will not add to the deficit and will, in fact, help reduce it over time.
Yet, the CRFB analysis estimates that Harris’ policies could lead to a $3.5 trillion increase in the national debt over 10 years. The report explains that Harris’ plans to extend some of the 2017 Trump tax cuts, combined with new tax breaks for parents and workers in the hospitality industry, would result in a significant reduction in federal revenues. While Harris has proposed raising $4 trillion in additional taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals, the analysis argues that these increases would not fully cover the costs of her policy agenda, nor the interest generated by the additional borrowing.
The analysis does offer a range of possible outcomes for Harris’ proposals, noting that her agenda could add nothing to the baseline deficit in an optimistic scenario. However, in a worst-case scenario, her plans could add as much as $8.1 trillion to the national debt by 2035.
Trump’s economic plan: Growth promises, mounting debt
Donald Trump, on the other hand, continues to push for tax cuts and deregulation as the foundation of his economic plan. He has frequently claimed that his policies would lead to such dramatic economic growth that concerns over deficits and national debt would be rendered irrelevant. His platform includes extending the 2017 tax cuts, eliminating taxes on overtime pay, and scrapping the cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions. While Trump insists that these policies will stimulate the economy, the CRFB report suggests they will lead to massive increases in federal debt.
The analysis predicts that Trump’s plans could add $7.5 trillion to the national debt by 2035 and warns that the total could balloon to as much as $15.2 trillion if growth does not materialize as expected. The report emphasizes that Trump’s proposals for continued tax cuts would significantly reduce federal revenues, while his lack of significant spending cuts would lead to further debt accumulation.
The CRFB also highlights the challenges of Trump’s fiscal strategy, pointing out that the expense of servicing the national debt has already eclipsed the cost of defense spending and Medicare. With federal debt held by the public now exceeding $28 trillion, the report warns that Trump’s policies would exacerbate this growing financial burden.
The battle over fiscal responsibility
While both candidates’ economic plans would lead to increases in the national debt, multiple independent analyses suggest that Harris’ policies may be more fiscally responsible in comparison to Trump’s. Jason Furman, a Harvard University professor and former top economist in the Obama White House, estimated in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that Harris’ policies could either reduce or increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion, depending on how they are implemented. Meanwhile, Furman estimates Trump’s plans would raise the deficit by at least $5 trillion.
More Read
Other think tanks, such as The Budget Lab at Yale and the Penn Wharton Budget Model, have reached similar conclusions. Both institutions project that Harris’ approach would be more effective in limiting deficit growth, though neither candidate’s plans fully prioritize debt reduction.
A looming financial challenge
The CRFB’s 34-page report highlights the significant fiscal challenges awaiting the next president, regardless of who wins the 2024 election. The rising costs of entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, combined with increased defense spending and the expense of servicing the national debt, will leave little room for additional borrowing without risking long-term financial instability.
While neither Harris nor Trump has made deficit reduction a central theme of their campaigns, the analysis warns that under either presidency, the national debt would continue to grow faster than the economy. This could limit the government’s ability to respond to future crises and undermine U.S. fiscal health for years to come.
As voters head to the polls in November, they will face a choice between two candidates whose economic policies may look different on the surface but, according to this new analysis, could both lead to troubling increases in the national debt.
