The Claim

Slowed the growth of the federal deficit through rescissions and discretionary spending restraint.

The Claim, Unpacked

What is literally being asserted?

Two things: (1) the growth of the federal deficit slowed, and (2) this was caused by two mechanisms — rescissions and discretionary spending restraint. The claim does not assert the deficit shrank; it says the “growth” slowed.

What is being implied but not asserted?

That the administration’s fiscal policies are working. That “rescissions” and “discretionary spending restraint” are substantive deficit-reduction tools of meaningful scale. That the administration exercised fiscal discipline. That the deficit trajectory is improving because of deliberate policy choices made by this administration. The placement under “CHAMPIONING AMERICAN WORKERS AND AMERICAN INDUSTRY” implies that deficit reduction benefits working Americans.

What is conspicuously absent?

Six critical facts: (1) The FY2025 deficit narrowed by just $41 billion (2.3%) compared to FY2024 — and this was driven entirely by revenue growing faster than spending, not by spending cuts. (2) Federal outlays actually increased by $275 billion (4.1%) in FY2025 to $7.01 trillion — the opposite of “restraint.” (3) The $9 billion rescission package represents 0.13% of total FY2025 outlays and 0.49% of the deficit — a fiscal rounding error. (4) The deficit improvement was driven by a $317 billion (6.4%) revenue increase, substantially fueled by tariff collections. (5) The administration signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on July 4, 2025, which CBO projects will add $3.4 trillion to deficits over the next decade — roughly 382 times the value of the rescissions package. (6) Net interest on the public debt surpassed $1 trillion for the first time in FY2025, a structural cost that dwarfs any discretionary savings.

Padding Analysis: Overlap with Items 75, 84, and 85

This claim restates elements from multiple prior items without adding new substance. Item #75 claimed “fiscal restraint” was responsible for inflation control — we found federal spending increased. Item #84 covered the $9 billion rescission package and found it was 0.13% of federal outlays. Item #85 covered the $4.9 billion pocket rescission. Item #112 combines the “fiscal restraint” language from #75 with the “rescissions” from #84/#85, repackaged as a deficit claim. While not pure padding of any single item, the underlying evidence base is entirely recycled.

Evidence Assessment

Established Facts

The FY2025 federal deficit was $1.775 trillion, a decrease of $41 billion (2.3%) from FY2024’s $1.817 trillion. OMB data via FRED (series FYFSD) confirms the deficit narrowed modestly. As a share of GDP, the deficit improved from 6.20% to 5.77%. On the narrow question of whether the “growth of the deficit slowed,” the answer is technically yes — the deficit did not grow at all in FY2025; it shrank slightly. However, the claim credits the wrong mechanisms for this improvement. ¹

Federal spending increased by $275 billion (4.1%) in FY2025, contradicting “spending restraint.” Total federal net outlays rose from $6.73 trillion in FY2024 to $7.01 trillion in FY2025 (FRED series FYONET). Quarterly spending data (BEA series FGEXPND) shows growth of 0.91%, 2.50%, and 1.12% in the first three quarters of 2025, with a negligible -0.04% in Q4 (distorted by the October-November government shutdown). Spending as a share of GDP declined marginally from 22.99% to 22.78%, but this reflects GDP growth outpacing spending growth, not an actual reduction in spending. The 50-year average is 21.2%. ²

The deficit narrowed because revenue grew faster than spending, not because of spending restraint. Federal revenues increased by $317 billion (6.4%) to $5.23 trillion in FY2025, outpacing the $275 billion spending increase. Revenue as a share of GDP rose from 16.79% to 17.01%. The revenue increase was partially driven by tariff collections, which reached an effective rate of 7.7% — the highest since 1947 per the Tax Foundation. The deficit narrowed by $41 billion because revenue growth ($317B) exceeded spending growth ($275B), not because spending was cut. ³

The $9 billion rescission package represents 0.13% of FY2025 outlays and 0.49% of the deficit. CBO scored the Rescissions Act of 2025 (H.R. 4) at $8.9 billion in outlay reductions over FY2025-2035. Against total FY2025 outlays of $7.0 trillion, this is 0.13%. Against the FY2025 deficit of $1.8 trillion, it is 0.49%. Even measured against the primary deficit (excluding interest) of $913 billion, rescissions represent approximately 1%. This is not a meaningful deficit-reduction mechanism. ⁴

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed by the same administration on July 4, 2025, adds $3.4 trillion to deficits over 10 years. CBO estimates the OBBBA reduces federal tax revenues by $4.5 trillion while cutting spending by $1.4 trillion and increasing other spending by $325 billion, resulting in a net deficit increase of $3.4 trillion over 2025-2034 (over $4 trillion including additional interest costs). The rescissions package saves $8.9 billion over a decade; the OBBBA costs $3.4 trillion over the same period. The OBBBA’s deficit increase is approximately 382 times larger than the rescissions savings. ⁵

Net interest on the public debt exceeded $1 trillion for the first time in FY2025. CBO’s Monthly Budget Review reported that net interest costs surpassed $1 trillion in FY2025, driven by the accumulated debt from prior deficits. This single line item is more than 112 times the value of the entire rescissions package. Interest costs are a structural consequence of sustained high deficits — the very condition the claim suggests the administration is addressing. ⁶

Strong Inferences

“Discretionary spending restraint” is not supported by any spending metric. The claim cites “discretionary spending restraint” as a deficit-reduction mechanism. Yet total federal outlays grew 4.1%. Quarterly spending growth continued in every quarter except Q4, which was distorted by the government shutdown. Spending as a share of GDP remained above the 50-year average. While the growth rate moderated compared to FY2024’s 9.8% increase, a slower rate of increase is not “restraint” — it is a smaller increase. The administration did not cut discretionary spending; it increased spending at a slightly slower rate than the prior year. ⁷

The administration’s own legislative agenda is the single largest driver of future deficit growth. The OBBBA’s $3.4 trillion net deficit increase over 10 years will push projected deficits to unprecedented peacetime levels. CBO projections incorporating the OBBBA show annual deficits exceeding $2.5 trillion by the late 2020s, with debt-to-GDP ratios approaching 130% by 2034. An administration that signs a $3.4 trillion deficit-increasing bill while claiming credit for “slowing the growth of the deficit” through a $9 billion rescissions package is not engaged in fiscal restraint — it is engaged in fiscal messaging. ⁸

The deficit “slowed” entirely through mechanisms unrelated to the cited causes. The two mechanisms cited — rescissions and discretionary spending restraint — contributed negligibly to the FY2025 deficit outcome. The rescissions contributed at most $8.9 billion (and much of that scored over multiple years, not FY2025 alone). “Discretionary spending restraint” did not occur in any measurable sense. The actual deficit improvement came from revenue growth, substantially driven by tariff collections — a policy the administration does tout elsewhere but does not cite here, likely because acknowledging tariffs as a tax would undermine other claims. ⁹

What the Evidence Shows

The FY2025 deficit did narrow slightly — by $41 billion, or 2.3% — compared to FY2024. That much is true. But the claim attributes this improvement to “rescissions and discretionary spending restraint,” and neither mechanism actually explains the outcome.

Start with the spending side. Federal outlays increased by $275 billion in FY2025, reaching $7.01 trillion. That is a 4.1% increase. Spending grew in every quarter of 2025 except Q4, which was distorted by the government shutdown. The growth rate was slower than FY2024’s 9.8% surge, but a slower rate of increase is not “restraint” in any meaningful sense. Spending was higher in absolute terms, higher as a share of GDP than the 50-year average, and growing. If you spend more money this year than last year, you are not exercising “restraint” — you are exercising it less quickly.

The rescissions package, while a real legislative accomplishment (the first since 1992), is a fiscal footnote. The $8.9 billion CBO score, spread over a decade, represents 0.13% of annual outlays. Against a $1.8 trillion deficit, it is 0.49%. The pocket rescission (item #85) adds another $4.9 billion, but even combined, these measures represent less than 0.2% of annual spending. The claim is asking a $14 billion rescission to explain a $41 billion deficit improvement within a $7 trillion budget. The arithmetic does not work.

What actually narrowed the deficit was the revenue side. Federal revenues grew by $317 billion (6.4%) in FY2025, outpacing spending growth by $42 billion. This revenue increase was substantially driven by tariff collections, which pushed the effective tariff rate to the highest level since 1947. The administration is claiming credit for deficit reduction through “rescissions and spending restraint” while the actual mechanism was tariff-driven revenue increases — a policy it touts in other claims but conspicuously omits here, likely because framing tariffs as deficit-reducing taxes would conflict with the narrative that tariffs benefit American workers.

The most devastating context is the administration’s own legislative record. On July 4, 2025 — five weeks before the pocket rescission — President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which CBO projects will increase deficits by $3.4 trillion over the next decade ($4+ trillion with interest). The OBBBA’s annual deficit increase is roughly 382 times the rescissions savings. Claiming to “slow the growth of the deficit” through $9 billion in rescissions while simultaneously signing a $3.4 trillion deficit-increasing bill is not fiscal policy — it is fiscal theater. The stage prop ($9 billion saved) is visible; the structural collapse ($3.4 trillion added) is behind the curtain.

The Bottom Line

The FY2025 deficit did narrow by $41 billion compared to FY2024 — a modest 2.3% improvement that no one disputes. But the claim credits “rescissions and discretionary spending restraint,” neither of which explains the outcome. Federal spending grew by $275 billion (4.1%). The $9 billion rescissions package represents 0.13% of total spending. The deficit narrowed because tariff-driven revenue growth outpaced spending growth — a mechanism the claim conspicuously does not mention.

Steel-man: The deficit did not grow in FY2025 — it shrank slightly. The deficit-to-GDP ratio improved from 6.20% to 5.77%. Spending growth moderated compared to FY2024. The rescissions package was a genuine legislative accomplishment, the first since 1992. These are real, if modest, fiscal developments. But an administration that signs a $3.4 trillion deficit-increasing tax bill while touting $9 billion in rescissions as deficit reduction is not slowing the growth of the deficit — it is accelerating it by orders of magnitude while pointing at a rounding error. The rescissions are 0.26% of the OBBBA’s cost. The stated preference (fiscal restraint) is contradicted by the revealed preference ($3.4 trillion in new deficit spending).

Footnotes

1. OMB via FRED, “Federal Surplus or Deficit,” Series FYFSD. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSD; OMB via FRED, “Federal Surplus or Deficit as Percent of GDP,” Series FYFSGDA188S. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSGDA188S ↩

2. OMB via FRED, “Federal Net Outlays,” Series FYONET. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONET; BEA via FRED, “Federal Government Current Expenditures,” Series FGEXPND. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FGEXPND; OMB via FRED, “Federal Net Outlays as Percent of GDP,” Series FYONGDA188S. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S ↩

3. OMB via FRED, “Federal Government Total Receipts,” Series FYFR. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFR; OMB via FRED, “Federal Receipts as Percent of GDP,” Series FYFRGDA188S. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S; Tax Foundation, “Trump Tariffs and the Trade War.” https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-trade-war/ ↩

4. CBO, “Monthly Budget Review: Summary for Fiscal Year 2025,” Publication 61307. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61307; H.R. 4, Rescissions Act of 2025. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4 ↩

5. CBO, “Estimated Budgetary Effects of Public Law 119-21,” Publication 61387. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61387; CBO, “Distributional Effects of H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61387 ↩

6. CBO, “Monthly Budget Review: Summary for Fiscal Year 2025,” Publication 61307. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61307 ↩

7. BEA via FRED, Series FGEXPND, quarterly percent change data. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FGEXPND; OMB via FRED, Series FYONET. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONET ↩

8. CBO, “Estimated Budgetary Effects of Public Law 119-21.” https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61387; CRFB, “OBBBA Dynamic Score Comes In at $4.7 Trillion.” https://www.crfb.org/blogs/obbba-dynamic-score-comes-47-trillion ↩

9. Analysis of FY2025 deficit components: revenue increase of $317B vs. spending increase of $275B, yielding $41B deficit reduction. Rescissions contribution of $8.9B over 10 years represents a fraction of FY2025 improvement. Revenue growth driven substantially by tariff collections per Tax Foundation analysis. ↩