Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.
No.
Watch the video version of this fact brief by Trisha Young.
Spending cuts proposed in President Donald Trump’s “big beautiful bill” would not be the largest ever, according to nonpartisan analysts.
The largest-cut claim was made by Republican U.S. Rep. Scott Fitzgerald, who represents part of southeastern Wisconsin, ahead of the House vote. His office cited a $1.7 trillion claim made by the Trump administration.
The House-passed version of the bill nominally would have cut $1.6 trillion in spending over 10 years.
But the bill’s net decreases were $1.2 trillion, after taking spending increases into account, and $680 billion after additional interest payments on the debt.
The heaviest spending reductions don’t begin until around 2031, increasing the chances that they could be changed by future legislation.
A $1.7 trillion net cut would be second to a 2011 law that decreased spending by $2 trillion and would be the third-largest cut as a percentage of gross domestic product, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.
Sources
- Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: House Spending Cuts Would Not Be Largest in History
- Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: House Reconciliation Bill Barely Slows Spending Growth
- Cato Institute: Senate Big Beautiful Bill: More Growth, More Subsidies, More Debt
- Economic Policy Innovation Center: The Fiscal Effects of the Senate Reconciliation Bill
- The White House: Mythbuster: The One Big Beautiful Bill Cuts Spending, Deficit — and That’s a Fact
- Axios: Deficit hawks hate the latest version of the "big, beautiful bill"
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
