Donald Trump campaigned for president promising to bring fiscal responsibility back to Washington. He criticized government waste, complained about America's enormous national debt, and repeatedly suggested that the federal government needed to get its spending under control.
Yet in February 2018, barely a year into his presidency, Trump signed a bipartisan budget agreement that substantially increased federal spending limits, effectively weakening one of the few mechanisms Congress had established to restrain government expenditure.
The price tag? Approximately $418 billion in additional projected federal debt over ten years, including interest payments.
It was another example of a recurring contradiction in Trump's economic policies: he talked about reducing government spending while signing legislation that allowed Washington to spend considerably more money.
And unlike the massive spending packages that would follow during the COVID-19 pandemic, this happened during a period of economic expansion, when the United States was not facing an extraordinary national emergency.
The Budget Deal of February 2018
On February 9, 2018, Donald Trump signed the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 into law.
The legislation was the product of negotiations between Republican and Democratic lawmakers. It was intended to resolve a prolonged disagreement over federal spending limits, military funding, domestic programs, and disaster relief.
At the heart of the disagreement was something called the Budget Control Act of 2011.
Back in 2011, Congress had passed legislation establishing limits on discretionary federal spending in an attempt to control the growing national debt. The agreement introduced spending caps for defense and nondefense programs.
It also included an enforcement mechanism known as sequestration. If Congress failed to reach an agreement on deficit reduction, automatic spending cuts would take effect.
The idea was relatively simple: if politicians couldn't agree to control spending voluntarily, the government would impose reductions automatically.
Unfortunately, politicians on both sides of the aisle disliked the restrictions.
Republicans wanted more money for military spending, while Democrats wanted additional funding for domestic programs such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure.
Rather than accepting the spending restrictions, lawmakers eventually negotiated a deal that substantially increased the permitted spending levels.
Trump signed it.
What Did the $418 Billion Actually Pay For?
The budget agreement increased discretionary spending caps by approximately $296 billion over fiscal years 2018 and 2019.
This included approximately $165 billion in additional defense spending and $131 billion in nondefense spending.
In other words, both military and domestic government programs received substantial increases.
The legislation also included approximately $89 billion in disaster relief budget authority, intended to help communities recover from major natural disasters, including hurricanes and wildfires.
There were also smaller provisions involving healthcare programs, tax legislation, and other government expenditures.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget examined the legislation using Congressional Budget Office estimates and calculated its overall fiscal impact.
Its breakdown was approximately:
$290 billion in additional discretionary spending outlays.
$68 billion in disaster relief spending.
$9 billion in net revenue reductions.
A $47 billion reduction in mandatory spending.
$98 billion in additional interest costs.
After accounting for these components, the total projected increase in federal debt came to approximately $418 billion over the 2018–2027 period.
The distinction between spending authority and actual spending is important. Congress authorized higher spending limits, but the full amount was not necessarily spent immediately. The $418 billion figure represents the projected cumulative budgetary impact, including additional interest, rather than money borrowed in February 2018.
Nevertheless, it was a substantial increase in the amount American taxpayers would eventually owe.