It is a promise that could hardly be greater – and at the same time more dangerous: President Donald Trump wants to solve America’s debt problem. With multibillion-dollar tax cuts, growth-driven optimism, and an aggressive tariff policy. But what sounds like an economic revelation turns out, upon closer inspection, to be a risky game with the fiscal substance of the United States.
Because not only Democrats, but also Republican senators, investors – and even Elon Musk – are expressing doubts. The markets are nervous, the forecasts fragile, and the political support unstable. And so a country that sees itself as the economic epicenter of the world faces the question: Is this the path to prosperity – or the beginning of a controlled loss of control?
The art of sugarcoating debt
What Trump praises in his speeches as the "One, Big, Beautiful Bill" is in truth a tax policy gamble with an uncertain outcome. The measures recently passed by the House of Representatives could, according to the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, increase the national deficit by more than $5 trillion over the next ten years – if they are not allowed to expire as planned. But in Washington, "expiration" usually just means "extend it once no one is paying attention."
The national debt has already reached astronomical levels – over $36 trillion – while interest rates on US Treasury bonds have risen to 4.5%. For comparison: when Trump’s first tax reform took effect in 2017, the rate was around 2.5%. This means every additional dollar of debt now carries almost double the burden into the future.
Nevertheless, the White House is sticking to its course – and attacks any form of criticism. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt recently dismissed the assessments of the respected Congressional Budget Office (CBO) as “sloppy” and partisan. But what is left when the compass is declared defective? Navigation becomes a matter of instinct – or ideology.
That even Elon Musk has now distanced himself from the project is a warning sign. The tech titan, who once embodied Trump’s efficiency promises as head of the Department of Government Efficiency, now appears disillusioned: the legislation increases the deficit and undermines the work of his agency. It is a symbolic break – not only financially, but morally as well.
While the White House promises growth of 3.2% per year (instead of the 1.9% projected by the CBO), economists like Kent Smetters (Penn Wharton Budget Model) remain skeptical. Harvard professor Jason Furman even speaks of “pure fiction.” And Ernie Tedeschi from Yale University calculates that even under optimistic assumptions, the US would need about $10 trillion in deficit reduction just to stabilize the status quo – growth alone is far from enough.
No room for honesty – only for show
In this climate, Trump’s refusal to implement substantial spending cuts comes across as a dangerous act of political convenience. “We need a lot of votes,” he said. “We can’t just cut.” It is a sentence that reveals more about the functioning of the political apparatus than any footnote in the federal budget. What matters is not fiscal sustainability – but vote maximization in a perpetual campaign.
And so in the end, belief is supposed to rescue what mathematics has long rejected: the belief in self-sustaining growth, in magical tariff revenues, in an economy that submits to political will like a servant to his master. Trump himself declared in April that his import tariffs would bring in enough money to “pay off the debt” – and that “very quickly.” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent backed this up with the promise that the deficit could be more than halved within a year.
But courts have raised doubts about the legal basis of these tariffs. And economists like Douglas Elmendorf, Glenn Hubbard, and Zachary Liscow warn: even with rising revenues and growth, Trump’s math is too optimistic – because it ignores structural realities.
Resistance within his own ranks
Meanwhile, resistance is growing in the US Senate – from within Trump’s own party. Ron Johnson (Wisconsin) and Rand Paul (Kentucky) want to stop the legislation until concrete spending cuts are on the table. It is a rare moment of internal dissent – and perhaps the beginning of a new dynamic. Because the further the budget hole widens, the clearer it becomes: Trump’s tax promises are not based on fiscal prudence, but on political wishful thinking.
Donald Trump has created a growth-driven debt model that resembles less an economic rationale than a system of hope and assertion. The numbers tell a different story – a story of warning, over-indebtedness, and political dishonesty.
And so the essential question remains: Can a country be led out of a debt crisis if its leader refuses to pay the price of truth? Trump’s answer is: with optimism, tariffs, and a promise. The answer from economics is: it won’t be enough.
English 
German 
