If there’s one thing budget committees like, it’s foresight on government spending. However, the second Trump administration is yet to share its plans for expenditure in the coming fiscal year: With deficits notching higher, economists are urging the White House to take a more transparent approach.
By law, the White House should have submitted its budget proposal for fiscal year 2027 (starting in October) yesterday. The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 requires budgets to be submitted on the first Monday in February, though delays are accepted in transitional years between administrations, and 2026 is not one of them.
The delayed filing is adding to concerns about how seriously the White House is taking America’s fiscal situation: Uncle Sam has borrowed more than $38.5 trillion, and the government ran a deficit of $1.78 trillion for fiscal year 2025, which ended in September. President Trump isn’t alone in missing the deadline: No president has submitted a budget on time since 2015.
Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), is concerned that, despite President Trump being in office for more than a year, no fiscal plan or priorities have been shared. She said in a statement: “If you don’t budget, you can’t govern … When the President does release his budget, it should include an actionable plan for getting our nation’s finances on sustainable footing.”
MacGuineas urged the White House to share a fiscal target such as reducing deficits to at least 3% of GDP, and share specific tax and spending policies which directly address how to get debt on a sustainable path.
The bipartisan committee chief added: “With debt approaching record levels and deficits projected to average over 6% of GDP per year, significant reforms will be needed. We won’t be able to fix the debt without touching Social Security, Medicare, defense, or revenue—the math just doesn’t work. And we can’t count on heroic growth rates or crashing interest rates.
“Most forecasters expect long-term economic growth of less than 2% per year; a budget that assumes 3% sustained annual growth over the next decade is not a serious budget.”
The White House has exhibited a more optimistic outlook on growth, at least in the short term. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, for example, told reporters at Davos last month that he’s expecting GDP to exceed 5% in the early part of 2026, maybe even 6% if rates were lowered.
Trump and his team had made some noises that reassured nervous economists that federal budgets would be addressed in his second term, namely, how tariffs would bring in billions in revenue to be directed to addressing debt concerns. Other unusual fundraising initiatives included “gold card” visas, which were billed to wealthy individuals at $5 million for fast-track entry into the U.S.
Since then, President Trump has suggested that tariff revenues will be shared with voters in the form of $2,000 rebate checks (emptying the coffers generated by tariffs, and more) and further details about gold cards are yet to be made clear.
MacGuineas urged the White House to deliver, adding: “The president’s budget offers an opportunity to start turning things around. We need the president to lead.”
Political appeal
It seems voters are also becoming increasingly concerned about America’s spending habits and would like to see deficits addressed: According to a study from the Peter G. Peterson Foundation (a think tank working for a more responsible federal spending environment) released last week, 81% of voters believe lawmakers should spend more time addressing the debt, with 77% agreeing that reducing the debt should be a top-three priority.
Of course, asking voters (the Peterson Foundation surveyed more than 1,000 people) whether they are concerned by debt levels produces something of a foregone conclusion: In a perfect world, many would choose debt levels to be lower—whether or not voters would support the economic measures needed to improve deficits is another matter.
Despite the fact that potential cost-cutting initiatives to rebalance the books may prove unpopular, it seems politicians are also supportive of targets to reduce deficit levels. Last month, Representatives Bill Huizenga (R-MI) and Scott Peters (D-CA), co-chairs of the Bipartisan Fiscal Forum (BFF) introduced a Congressional resolution on how government “should reduce and maintain the Federal unified budget deficit at or below 3% of GDP.”
“Congress should adopt a fiscal target to reduce the Federal budget deficit [the target] or less as soon as possible and no later than the end of fiscal year 2030,” the resolution reads. “Following the achievement of the target, Congress should continue to pursue further deficit reduction with the goal of achieving a balanced Federal budget.”
