As America’s national debt approaches a staggering $35 trillion, concerns are mounting over the nation’s fiscal future. With government spending showing no signs of slowing down, the economic outlook heading into 2025 appears uncertain. The upcoming presidential election, which could see former President Donald Trump face off against Vice President Kamala Harris, will play a critical role in determining how the United States addresses its debt and economic policy challenges. Each candidate brings a different approach to managing the economy, and their strategies could have significant implications for the nation’s fiscal health.
The national debt has ballooned in recent years due to a combination of factors, including large-scale government spending on pandemic relief, increased military expenditures, and growing entitlement costs. While some of this spending was considered necessary to stabilize the economy, the long-term impact has been a significant increase in borrowing. The debt now exceeds 100% of the U.S. GDP, and interest payments alone are projected to consume an increasingly large portion of the federal budget.
Moving forward, there are no immediate plans in place to drastically cut spending or raise revenues in a way that would significantly reduce the debt. Both the Congressional Budget Office and independent economists have warned that continued borrowing at current levels is unsustainable and could lead to higher interest rates, reduced government investment in other priorities, and potential economic instability.
If Donald Trump returns to the White House in 2025, he is likely to advocate for policies similar to those seen during his previous administration. This includes tax cuts aimed at stimulating economic growth, deregulation, and an “America First” trade policy that emphasizes tariffs and renegotiating trade deals to benefit U.S. industries. Trump has argued that his approach to economic policy will foster growth and generate enough revenue to eventually pay down the debt.
However, critics argue that Trump’s previous tax cuts disproportionately benefited the wealthy and contributed to the national debt’s growth by reducing federal revenues. Furthermore, while deregulation and tariffs may boost certain sectors, they could also lead to higher consumer prices and trade disputes. Supporters counter that his policies led to strong economic growth and low unemployment before the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting a similar approach could yield positive results again.
Vice President Kamala Harris, on the other hand, is expected to continue the policies of the Biden administration, which have focused on large-scale infrastructure investments, social programs, and efforts to reduce income inequality. Her approach would likely include a mix of targeted tax increases, particularly on corporations and high-income earners, and continued government spending to support economic initiatives like clean energy and healthcare expansion.
Proponents argue that this strategy would help build a stronger middle class and create a more equitable economy. Critics, however, worry that more government spending could further inflate the debt and lead to higher taxes on the broader population. Additionally, some economists caution that such policies may not generate enough economic growth to offset the increased spending, potentially worsening the nation’s fiscal outlook.
Determining which candidate has a superior economic plan largely depends on one’s economic philosophy. Trump’s strategy emphasizes tax cuts, deregulation, and a growth-first approach, with the belief that a stronger economy will help reduce the debt over time. However, the impact on the deficit remains a concern. Harris’s approach seeks to address social issues and invest in the future, but questions remain about how to fund these initiatives without exacerbating the debt.
Ultimately, America’s path forward on the national debt will require balancing growth with fiscal responsibility. Whether the next president can implement policies to curb the debt and sustain economic growth will be critical to the country’s future stability. The 2025 election will present voters with a choice between two contrasting economic visions, each with significant implications for the nation’s financial trajectory.