Politics
Column: Pay attention to the deficit, even if Trump won’t
Americans could be forgiven if they’re unaware that President Trump recently performed one of his most essential tasks and sent his annual budget request to Congress, though months late and stunningly incomplete.
After all, so much else has been dominating the news lately: the Mideast war that Trump promised not to start. Price rises he’d vowed to end. His repeated insults of Pope Leo XIV. His portraying himself as Jesus Christ, then lying about having done so. An incompetent attorney general to fire. And the president’s actual priorities — plans for a $400-million White House ballroom and a massive “Triumphal Arch” nearby!
It’s a lot.
Once again, as in Trump’s first term, the public and press are inattentive to the nation’s fiscal health relative to past years. But that reflects the president’s own disengagement with reconciling spending and revenue — this from a president many Americans voted for based on his purported prowess as a businessman. For decades back to Ronald Reagan’s time, so-called deficit wars in Washington were a big story. Now, even Republicans in Congress complain of Trump’s absence from the fiscal fray as they struggle to belatedly finish this year’s budget work that was due last fall, and to end a weeks-old partial government shutdown, before turning to the budget for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1.
Yet it’s worth paying attention to U.S. budgets even if Trump won’t, for the sake of our children and grandchildren who’ll inherit the bills. In one document, a federal budget reflects the nation’s priorities. And these days, in the perennial guns-versus-butter debate, Trump has made his feelings all too plain.
“We’re fighting wars,” he told a group at the White House on April Fools’ Day. “We can’t take care of day care … Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things.”
Forget that Trump swore to end wars. Or that last year, long before he went to war against Iran, he cut $1 trillion over 10 years from Medicaid and other healthcare programs in his misnamed “One Big Beautiful Bill.”
Yes, budgets can be boring, especially to a president with a famously short attention span. Trump and many of us Americans are distracted constantly by all the shiny objects he throws at the national consciousness by his words, acts and social media postings at all hours.
Yet the budgetary trend is clear to anyone bothering to look: As president, Trump is once again exacerbating the nation’s unsustainable course of piling up debt. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, among other credible sources, debt is now approaching the highest level in U.S. history, which was reached during World War II. It already surpasses the size of the entire economy and threatens higher borrowing costs and reduced investments.
For all the achievements Trump likes to claim — ending eight wars in a year! — here’s one that’s real: He is on a path to break his own record for the most debt in a single presidential term, $8.4 trillion in Trump 1.0, which was nearly double the increase under President Biden.
Need further proof of Trump’s brazen mendacity? Of course you don’t, but here it is: In the face of the well-documented budget record, Trump declared both this year and last year to a joint session of Congress, on national television, that he would balance the federal budget —“overnight,” he said in February.
The inequitable tax cuts and big spending increases for the military and immigration crackdowns that Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress enacted last year are significantly greater than in his first term, and are driving up the debt despite Republicans’ deep healthcare cuts. Just months after Trump took office, the ratings firm Moody’s downgraded the nation’s sterling credit rating for the first time in more than a century.
And now, in his new budget request, Trump seeks to inflate military spending from under $1 trillion when he regained office to $1.5 trillion, for the biggest year-to-year increase in military budgets since World War II.
This fiscal irresponsibility is happening at the worst possible time. For the last quarter of the 20th century, presidents and Congresses of both parties annually debated how to reduce deficits and several times reached consequential multi-year deals, culminating during the second Clinton term in four straight years of surpluses. (Those surpluses ended — wait for it — with Republicans’ tax cuts and war spending during the George W. Bush administration.)
Politicians back then were moved not just by the deficits of their time — deficits that, as a share of the economy, were less than half what they are now. They also were responding to experts’ warnings of a demographic tsunami by the 2020s: With the aging of the huge baby-boomer population, spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid would greatly increase even as the workforce whose payroll taxes support those programs shrank. Today the number of people 65 or older is almost three times what it was 50 years ago, and rising.
This reckoning is upon us, though you wouldn’t know it as Trump keeps calling for cutting revenue and spending more for lawless wars, immigration raids and monuments to himself. Barring bipartisan action, in 2033 Social Security’s retirement fund and Medicare’s hospital fund will no longer be able to cover beneficiaries’ full claims, according to their trustees’ annual report, necessitating reduced benefits or shifts of money from other worthy programs.
Trump did put Vice President JD Vance in charge of a “war on fraud.” But that holds about as much promise as Elon Musk’s fiscal fiasco — remember DOGE? — that cost money instead of cutting $2 trillion as promised.
Like other problems, Trump likely will leave the fiscal follies to his successor, who, should he or she win two terms, would preside as Social Security and Medicare become insolvent. I’ve yet to hear any of the early 2028 presidential aspirants — or Trump — address or be asked about that.
Let the debate, belatedly, begin.
Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes
new video loaded: How Rubio Is Driving the U.S. Pressure Campaign on Cuba
By Michael Crowley, Nikolay Nikolov, Alexandra Ostasiewicz, Jon Miller and Whitney Shefte
May 20, 2026
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A newly active X account bearing former first son Hunter Biden’s name drew mockery from GOP lawmakers and prominent social media personalities after posting its first message Tuesday.
“Your laptop’s reputation precedes you,” Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn wrote in response to the “@HunterBiden” account.
Fox News Digital reached out to X and Hunter Biden’s art gallery to verify if the account belongs to the former president’s son, but did not receive confirmation. The account has garnered thousands of followers and interactions since Tuesday, when it launched its first message.
“I’m Hunter Biden. You’ve never actually heard from me,” the account blaring the former first son’s name posted.
The account’s profile reads: “Artist. Author. Recovery Advocate.”
HUNTER BIDEN HELPED MAKE CAMPAIGN DECISIONS, WAS MAJOR FIXTURE IN FATHER’S ORBIT, AUTHOR SAYS
Hunter Biden posts his first message on X and Substack. (Mandel Ngan/AFP)
Hunter, 56, has re-emerged in the public spotlight as he attempts to rebuild his image following years of controversy involving drug addiction, legal troubles and scrutiny surrounding his personal life.
The X account, @HunterBiden, was first launched in 2013, according to a Fox News Digital review, but posted its first public message on Tuesday. Hunter Biden’s art gallery website is linked to the X account, while the art gallery’s website links to the X account, a YouTube page and a Substack account.
The tweet sparked a wave of mockery aimed at the younger Biden, as well as a handful of accounts quipping that the former first son would allegedly launch a 2028 run.
“We’ve heard plenty,” said Republican Indiana Sen. Jim Banks responded to the account.
“Trust me, we’ve heard and seen ENOUGH from you,” Republican Missouri Rep. Jason Smith chimed in.
Other social media users quickly piled onto the alleged Hunter Biden post, resurfacing past controversies and even floating him as a potential political candidate.
“Oh this oughta be good,” said conservative commentator Nick Sortor in an X response.
“Very real chance he doesn’t remember that we have, in fact, heard from him in hours of podcasting before now,” said Fox News contributor Mary Katharine Ham.
“The 2028 Dark Horse Candidate,” wrote one X user, while another added “He’s running.”
MAMDANI’S WIFE’S ‘STUDENT SKETCHBOOK’ ART IS HUNTER BIDEN EFFECT ALL OVER AGAIN, SAYS US ARTIST
Hunter’s art gallery website links his X account, Youtube, as well as a newly formed Substack which posts the same message. (TheImageDirect.com)
Additionally, Candace Owens tagged the X account in a trailer for her upcoming interview with Hunter Biden, who is continuing a media tour following years of controversy while under the public spotlight.
The @HunterBiden account reposted the video, writing, “She’s got questions. I’ve got answers. Thursday.”
JOE BIDEN POSES WITH HUNTER’S CHINESE BUSINESS ASSOCIATES IN NEWLY SURFACED PHOTOS: ‘INCREDIBLY DAMNING’
Hunter reportedly moved out of the United States amid mounting legal issues, just a year after his father left the presidential office in 2025. (REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque)
HUNTER BIDEN’S FINANCIAL WOES REVEALED IN NEW MOTION TO DROP LAWSUIT: ‘SIGNIFICANT DEBT’
Hunter Biden has been involved in a string of controversies spanning his foreign business dealings, tax and gun charges, and scrutiny tied to his family’s political connections.
Hunter received a pardon from President Joe Biden for any offense he “has committed or may have committed” from Jan. 1, 2014, to Dec. 1, 2024, before his father left office.
In September 2024, Hunter Biden pleaded guilty to nine federal tax charges in California for a scheme evading over $1.4 million in taxes from 2016 to 2019. He was also convicted in Delaware in June 2024 for lying on a federal form about his drug use to purchase a firearm in 2018.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Hunter published a memoir titled “Beautiful Things: A Memoir” in 2021 which details his battle with severe substance abuse and family tragedies from his own perspective.
Nearly three months after the United States and Israel launched their large-scale bombing campaign against Iran and about six weeks since the April 8 ceasefire took effect, President Trump faces an inflection point. Does he return to war? Maintain the ceasefire and U.S. blockade on Iranian ports in the hope of cutting a deal on American terms? Or drop his maximalist negotiating stance?
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), an informal foreign policy advisor for the White House, continues to press for more aggressive U.S. military action. Trump’s political advisors would prefer that the war end as soon as possible to minimize political repercussions against the Republican Party in a midterm election year.
Trump seems conflicted. Despite weeks of U.S. bombardment and an ongoing naval blockade, Tehran is as protective of its nuclear program today as it was before the war began. “For Iran, the Clock is Ticking, and they better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them,” Trump wrote on Truth Social over the weekend. A day later, Trump took to the social media platform again to announce he suspended planned U.S. attacks on Iran to give talks more time.
Unfortunately for Trump, he’s proved to be his own worst enemy on this subject. Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium and Tehran’s effective control of the Strait of Hormuz, the regime’s two biggest cards, are a byproduct of Trump’s own policy decisions.
The first is a clear indictment of Trump’s first-term order to withdraw the United States from the Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, a highly technical accord that put Iran’s nuclear work in a box by restricting the number and quality of centrifuges it could use, capped the amount of enriched uranium it could produce and compelled Tehran to ship 97% of its stockpile out of the country. When the Trump administration scrapped that hard-won deal, Iran responded by enriching more nuclear material at a faster pace and accumulating the very stockpile the Trump administration is now seeking to neutralize.
The Strait of Hormuz, Iran’s second card, would not even be an issue today if the Trump administration had refrained from going to war in the first place. On Feb. 27, the day before the conflict began, more than 150 tankers and vessels traveled through the strait. The international waterway was open for business.
Not so today. On Thursday, a grand total of three crossings were registered in the waterway. This collapse of commerce is a consequence of Iran’s ability to harass civilian tankers so much that shipping companies no longer view the journey as worth the cost. As Adm. Brad Cooper, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday: “The Iranian capability to stop commerce has been dramatically depleted through the strait, but their voice is very loud. And those threats are clearly heard by the merchant industry and insurance industry.”
By virtue of his own actions, Trump is now left with a series of policy options that range from least bad to terrible. None of them are ideal, and all of them carry some risk.
For starters, Trump could resume the war. Any renewed U.S. bombing campaign would probably expand the U.S. military’s original set of targets to include a portion of Iran’s energy infrastructure, which Trump has threatened repeatedly to hit. A U.S. invasion of Kharg Island, where 90% of Iran’s oil processing takes place, might also be up for discussion. The aim would be to destroy Iran’s remaining military capabilities and further squeeze its oil revenue until Tehran’s strategic calculus on the war shifts to Washington’s liking.
Yet there are no guarantees that doubling down on military force will work. Trump’s entire strategy has relied on a baseline assumption: The more punitive the United States is, the more likely Tehran will be to cave. Yet that simply hasn’t occurred. If anything, Iran is more dug in now than it was in the opening days of the conflict. For the regime, capitulating to Trump is as dangerous as losing the war. Why would more bombing succeed where previous bombing failed?
The risks of additional U.S. military action are considerable as well. Before the ceasefire, Iran was launching ballistic missiles and attack drones across multiple gulf Arab states, hitting Qatar’s largest natural gas processing facility, Saudi Arabia’s east-west oil pipeline and Dubai’s luxurious high-rises. As the Iranians have stated, such attacks will not only resume if Trump orders a resumption of the war but will expand to new targets, including desalination facilities and nuclear power plants. Such strikes would raise global oil and gas prices to even more absurd levels, adding to the extra $40 billion the American people are already paying for fuel since the war began.
What about continuing the status quo? While this contingency would be less costly than another round of bombing or a U.S. ground invasion, it’s unclear whether it would help or hurt negotiations toward a settlement. There’s a possibility that extending the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports could merely reaffirm the regime’s earlier decision to preserve its own shutdown of the strait. Iran is now urging Washington to end its blockade before talks on the nuclear file can be held. And it’s a mystery whether Trump’s blockade is working anyway; the U.S. intelligence community assesses that Iran could withstand this pressure point for three to four more months, which may be too long for Trump to sustain given the oil disruptions that are bound to get worse.
Striking an agreement to end the war, return the strait to open traffic and restrict Iran’s nuclear program would be the most beneficial policy for the United States with the least amount of cost attached — not quite undoing the harm from Trump’s first-term decision to scrap the nuclear deal and his second-term decision to start a war. U.S. and Iranian negotiators are passing proposals back and forth as we speak. But as of now, Trump can’t stomach agreeing to a deal that covers some of Iran’s terms, including but not limited to a shorter suspension of enriched uranium and some kind of Iranian role in the management of the strait. Even if Trump did reassess his position, he would be forced to confront the hawks in his political coalition who would consider anything short of Iran’s total surrender a failure.
In short, Trump is in an unenviable position. He’s got nobody to blame but himself.
Daniel R. DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities and a syndicated foreign affairs columnist.
-
Delaware5 minutes ago‘Takeover’ events on uptick statewide; 4 wanted for Rehoboth incident
-
Florida11 minutes agoFlorida man arrested after suspected human remains found buried at property where his father lived
-
Georgia17 minutes agoHow Keisha Lance Bottoms plans to win Georgia governor race as underdog
-
Hawaii23 minutes agoThe 7 Friendliest Little Towns In Hawaii
-
Idaho29 minutes agoIdaho State Police seize narcotics after pursuit near Pocatello
-
Illinois35 minutes agoUChicago Medicine performs first-known quadruple transplant surgery in Illinois
-
Indiana41 minutes agoCaitlin Clark scratched from Indiana Fever lineup at the last minute because of injury
-
Iowa47 minutes agoIowa State AD says he doesn’t care if SEC, Big Ten leave other P4 Conferences behind: ‘Let them break away’
