House Tax Bill Would Add Trillions to Deficit, Contrary to Republican Claims

Independent analyses have concluded that the recently passed House reconciliation bill would significantly increase the federal deficit over the next decade, despite claims from Republican lawmakers and the White House suggesting otherwise.

The legislation, known as H.R. 1 or the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” narrowly passed the House on May 22 with a 215-214 vote, with two Republicans voting against it. The comprehensive bill extends the 2017 tax cuts, implements additional tax reductions, increases border security funding, and cuts Medicaid spending among other provisions.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed on May 19 that “This bill does not add to the deficit,” and later celebrated its passage by posting that it represented the “Largest deficit reduction in nearly 30 years, securing $1.6 trillion in mandatory savings.” Similarly, Representative John Rutherford of Florida insisted the legislation “will NOT be a huge deficit bill.”

However, these claims directly contradict findings from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which reported the bill would increase the deficit by $3.8 trillion from 2026 to 2034 due to tax changes, including the extension of 2017 tax provisions. In a more comprehensive analysis released June 4, the CBO estimated the bill would increase the deficit by $2.4 trillion, net, over the ten-year period.

When confronted with the CBO’s analysis, House Speaker Mike Johnson argued the budget office doesn’t use “dynamic scoring,” which he claims would account for economic growth generated by the legislation’s policies. On CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Johnson acknowledged the bill would cost between $4 trillion and $5 trillion over the next decade but emphasized it includes “historic savings” of more than $1.5 trillion.

Marc Goldwein, senior vice president of the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), refuted claims of deficit reduction. “The bill is certainly not the largest deficit reduction in nearly 30 years – it’s not deficit reduction at all,” Goldwein said. CRFB’s analysis indicates the legislation would increase the deficit by $3.1 trillion over ten years when including interest costs.

Goldwein also challenged Johnson’s characterization of the spending cuts, noting the $1.5-1.6 trillion figure “doesn’t count spending increases in other parts of the bill,” including $144 billion in additional defense spending and $67 billion for immigration enforcement under homeland security.

Howard Gleckman of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center was even more direct, stating the bill “would add trillions of dollars to the deficit by any reasonable estimate. It is one of the biggest peacetime increases in the debt in history.” The primary driver of the deficit increase is the tax cut provisions, including the extension of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and other measures like eliminating taxes on tips and overtime.

The nonpartisan Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWBM) reached similar conclusions, estimating the legislation would increase primary deficits by $2.8 trillion over ten years. Contrary to Johnson’s suggestion that dynamic scoring would reduce the bill’s cost, PWBM’s dynamic analysis actually projected a higher deficit increase of $3.2 trillion when accounting for economic effects.

Kent Smetters, faculty director of the PWBM, confirmed that “the claim of a deficit reduction is wrong,” though he acknowledged Johnson’s estimate of $1.5 trillion in spending cuts over ten years is “a reasonable statement.” The PWBM found that lower-income households and some middle-class families would be worse off under the bill, primarily due to cuts in safety net programs and higher federal debt.

The Tax Foundation offered a slightly different perspective, estimating the bill would add $2.6 trillion to the deficit over a decade under conventional scoring, but $1.7 trillion when using dynamic scoring. Smetters noted this difference exists because “The Tax Foundation’s model does not incorporate any economic impact from more federal debt.”

The legislation now moves to the Senate, where it faces opposition from some Republicans concerned about its impact on the national debt. Both chambers must approve identical versions before it can reach the president’s desk, with Senate debates expected to continue through July.