Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ to spike US debt to $3 tn over 10 years. Why nobody looks worried

A new analysis of the House reconciliation bill, often referred to as President Donald Trump’s “ Big Beautiful Bill,” projects a sizeable increase in US deficits, adding an estimated $3.3 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. Despite this substantial fiscal impact, the economic and political landscape suggests a surprising lack of widespread concern.

The fiscal impact comes at a time when the US debt stands at 124% of GDP, a level that prompted credit rating agency Moody’s to downgrade the country’s top credit rating last week. Despite these warnings, the bill has passed without triggering widespread alarm among policymakers or the public.

Reuters reported that the US has recorded annual budget deficits throughout the 21st century, with successive Republican and Democratic administrations failing to align government spending with revenue.

More from World

US court blocks Trump’s tariffs: What does it mean for global trade, markets? US-China trade truce: Trump wants companies to make in America, but Xi readies new production boost plan

According to a report released on May 19, 2025, by the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model, the bill’s tax provisions, as approved by the House Ways and Means Committee, are the primary drivers, set to increase primary deficits by a staggering $4.561 trillion over the 10-year window.

However, the report also outlines a paradoxical economic forecast that may explain the muted alarm. Despite the projected surge in debt, the bill is anticipated to boost the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 0.5 percent within 10 years and a more substantial 1.7 percent over 30 years. While the average wage is expected to see a slight dip initially, it is projected to increase by 0.8 percent in the long run (30 years). These positive economic gains are attributed to anticipated national savings and labour supply increases.

Impact Shorts

View All

What do Trump's India tariffs have to do with Alaska talks? 'Very strong link,' says South Asia expert

West Asia News Live: Israel’s heat wave, Turkey’s earthquake defines a turbulent day in Middle East

The distributional effects, however, present a more complex picture. On a conventional basis, the report indicates that households in the lowest income quintile (first 20%) would experience a loss of approximately $1,035 in 2026.

Conversely, the top 10% of the income distribution is expected to capture roughly 65 percent of the total value generated by the legislation. Furthermore, when considering the dynamic lifetime impact, the model suggests that lower-income households and all future generations could be worse off, even with the projected overall positive economic effects.

The seemingly contradictory outcomes – a massive increase in debt alongside long-term economic growth – might be contributing to the lack of widespread public and political anxiety. The promise of future GDP expansion and a long-term rise in average wages could overshadow the immediate fiscal implications and the disproportionate benefits accruing to higher-income brackets.

This dynamic suggests that for many, the projected economic stimulus, even if unevenly distributed and debt-financed, is seen as a worthwhile trade-off, deferring concerns about the accumulating national debt.

The bill’s passage has sparked debate among policymakers and economists, particularly regarding its long-term fiscal sustainability and the equity of its provisions. As the legislation moves to the Senate, its potential impact on the U.S. economy and federal budget will continue to be closely scrutinised.

Critics argue that the bill disproportionately benefits the wealthiest Americans. Analyses indicate that the top 10% of income earners would receive about 65% of the total value of the legislation, while lower-income households could see reductions in after-tax income.

Despite the projected increase in the national debt, the bill has not faced significant resistance. Some analysts suggest that the potential for short-term economic growth and increased labour supply may be contributing factors to the lack of opposition.

However, concerns remain about the long-term fiscal sustainability of the bill. Financial experts warn that the increased deficit could lead to higher interest rates and reduced investment in critical areas such as infrastructure and education.