National debt of the United States

Recent statistics

Valuation and measurements

Public and government accounts

The national debt can be classified into marketable or non-marketable securities. Most of the marketable securities are Treasury notes, bills, and bonds held by investors and governments globally. The non-marketable securities are mainly the "government account series" owed to certain government trust funds such as the Social Security Trust Fund, which represented $2.82 trillion (~$3.54 trillion in 2024 dollars) in 2017.

The non-marketable securities represent amounts owed to program beneficiaries. For example, the cash is received but spent for other purposes. If the government continues to run deficits in other parts of the budget, the government will have to issue debt held by the public to fund the Social Security Trust Fund, in effect exchanging one type of debt for the other. Other large intragovernmental holders include the Federal Housing Administration, the Federal Savings and Loan Corporation's Resolution Fund and the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund (Medicare).

Accounting treatment

Only debt held by the public is reported as a liability on the consolidated financial statements of the United States government. Debt held by U.S. government accounts is an asset to those accounts but a liability to the Treasury; they offset each other in the consolidated financial statements. Government receipts and expenditures are normally presented on a cash rather than an accrual basis, although the accrual basis may provide more information on the longer-term implications of the government's annual operations. The United States public debt is often expressed as a ratio of public debt to GDP. The ratio of debt to GDP may decrease as a result of a government surplus as well as from growth of GDP and inflation.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac obligations excluded

Under normal accounting rules, fully owned companies would be consolidated into the books of their owners, but the large size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has made U.S. governments reluctant to incorporate them into its own books. When the two mortgage companies required bail-outs, White House Budget Director Jim Nussle, on September 12, 2008, initially indicated their budget plans would not incorporate the government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) debt into the budget because of the temporary nature of the conservator intervention. As the intervention has dragged out, some pundits began to question this accounting treatment, noting that changes in August 2012 "makes them even more permanent wards of the state and turns the government's preferred stock into a permanent, perpetual kind of security".

The federal government controls the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which would normally criticize inconsistent accounting practices, but it does not oversee its own government's accounting practices or the standards set by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board. The on- or off-balance sheet obligations of those two independent GSEs was just over $5 trillion at the time the conservatorship was put in place, consisting mainly of mortgage payment guarantees and agency bonds. The confusing independent but government-controlled status of the GSEs resulted in investors of the legacy common shares and preferred shares launching various activist campaigns in 2014.

Guaranteed obligations excluded

U.S. federal government guarantees were not included in the public debt total as they were not drawn against. In late 2008, the federal government had guaranteed large amounts of obligations of mutual funds, banks, and corporations under several programs designed to deal with the problems arising from the 2008 financial crisis. The guarantee program lapsed at the end of 2012, when Congress declined to extend the scheme. The funding of direct investments made in response to the crisis, such as those made under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, was included in the debt totals.

Unfunded obligations excluded

The U.S. federal government is obligated under current law to make mandatory payments for programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) projects that payouts for these programs will significantly exceed tax revenues over the next 75 years. The Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) payouts already exceed program tax revenues, and Social Security payouts exceeded payroll taxes in fiscal year 2010. These deficits require funding from other tax sources or borrowing.

In 2010, the value of these deficits or unfunded obligations was an estimated $45.8 trillion. This is the amount that would have had to be set aside in 2009 in order to pay for the unfunded obligations which, under current law, will have to be raised by the government in the future. Approximately $7.7 trillion relates to Social Security, while $38.2 trillion relates to Medicare and Medicaid. In other words, health care programs will require nearly five times more funding than Social Security. Adding this to the national debt and other federal obligations would bring total obligations to nearly $62 trillion. These unfunded obligations are not counted in the national debt, as shown in monthly Treasury reports of the national debt.

Measuring burden of debt

GDP is a measure of the total size and output of the economy. One measure of the debt burden is its size relative to GDP, called the "debt-to-GDP ratio". Mathematically, this is the debt divided by the GDP amount. The Congressional Budget Office includes historical budget and debt tables along with its annual "Budget and Economic Outlook". Debt held by the public rose from 0.347 times GDP in 2000, to 0.405 times GDP in 2008, and 0.677 times GDP in 2011.

Mathematically, the ratio can decrease even while debt grows if the rate of increase in GDP (which also takes account of inflation) is higher than the rate of increase of debt. Conversely, the debt to GDP ratio can increase even while debt is being reduced, if the decline in GDP is sufficient. Because much of the debt that was incurred as a result of World War Two could not be passed onto American citizens who also had no money to spare, the debt was never addressed and continued to grow.

In 2015, the U.S. debt to GDP ratio of 0.736 was the 39th highest in the world. This was measured using "debt held by the public." $1 trillion in additional borrowing since the end of FY 2015 raised the ratio to 0.762 as of April 2016 [See Appendix#National debt for selected years]. This number excludes state and local debt. In 2015, general government gross debt (federal, state, and local) in the fourth quarter was $22.5 trillion (1.25 times GDP). Subtracting out $5.25 trillion for intragovernmental federal debt, to count only federal "debt held by the public", gave 96% of GDP.

The ratio is higher if the total national debt is used, by adding the "intragovernmental debt" to the "debt held by the public." For example, on April 29, 2016, debt held by the public was approximately $13.84 trillion (~$17.7 trillion in 2024), or about 0.76 times GDP. Intra-governmental holdings stood at $5.35 trillion, giving a combined total public debt of $19.19 trillion. U.S. GDP for the previous 12 months was approximately $18.15 trillion, for a total debt to GDP ratio of approximately 1.06. Increasing and untreated national debt leads to a significantly diminished ability for the economy to operate at its highest level.

Calculating annual change in debt

Conceptually, an annual deficit (or surplus) should represent the change in the national debt, with a deficit adding to the national debt and a surplus reducing it. There is complexity in the budgetary computations that can make the deficit figure commonly reported in the media (the "total deficit") considerably different from the annual increase in the debt. The major categories of differences are the treatment of the Social Security program, Treasury borrowing, and supplemental appropriations outside the budget process.

Social Security payroll taxes and benefit payments, along with the net balance of the U.S. Postal Service, are considered "off-budget", while most other expenditure and receipt categories are considered "on-budget". The total federal deficit is the sum of the on-budget deficit (or surplus) and the off-budget deficit (or surplus). Since FY1960, the federal government has run on-budget deficits except for FY1999 and FY2000, and total federal deficits except in FY1969 and FY1998–FY2001.

For example, in January 2009 the CBO reported that for FY2008, the "on-budget deficit" was $638 billion, offset by an "off-budget surplus" (mainly due to Social Security revenue in excess of payouts) of $183 billion, for a "total deficit" of $455 billion. This latter figure is the one commonly reported in the media. An additional $313 billion was required for "the Treasury actions aimed at stabilizing the financial markets," an unusually high amount because of the subprime mortgage crisis.

This meant that the "debt held by the public" increased by $768 billion ($455B + $313B = $768B). The "off-budget surplus" was borrowed and spent, as is typically the case, increasing the "intra-governmental debt" by $183 billion. So the total increase in the "national debt" in FY2008 was $768B +$183B = $951 billion. The Treasury Department reported an increase in the national debt of $1,017B for FY2008. The $66 billion difference is likely from "supplemental appropriations" for the war on terror, some of which were outside the budget process entirely until President Obama began including most of them in his FY2010 budget.

In other words, spending the "off budget" Social Security surplus adds to the total national debt (by increasing the intragovernmental debt), while the "off-budget" surplus reduces the "total" deficit reported in the media. Certain spending called "supplemental appropriations" is outside the budget process entirely but adds to the national debt. Funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars was accounted for this way prior to the Obama administration. Certain stimulus measures and earmarks were also outside the budget process. The federal government publishes the total debt owed (public and intragovernmental holdings) daily.

Holders of debt

Because a large variety of people own the notes, bills, and bonds in the "public" portion of the debt, the Treasury also publishes information that groups the types of holders by general categories to portray who owns United States debt. In this data set, some of the public portion is moved and combined with the total government portion, because this amount is owned by the Federal Reserve as part of United States monetary policy. (See Federal Reserve System.)

As is apparent from the chart, a little less than half of the total national debt is owed to the "Federal Reserve and intragovernmental holdings". The foreign and international holders of the debt are also put together from the notes, bills, and bonds sections.

Foreign holdings

In October 2018, foreigners owned $6.2 trillion of U.S. debt, or approximately 39% of the debt held by the public of $16.1 trillion and 28% of the total debt of $21.8 trillion. In December 2020, foreigners held 33% ($7 trillion out of $21.6 trillion) of publicly held U.S. debt. Of this $7 trillion, $4.1 trillion (59.2%) belonged to foreign governments and $2.8 trillion (40.8%) to foreign investors. Including both private and public debt holders, the top three December 2020 national holders of American public debt were Japan ($1.2 trillion or 17.7%), China ($1.1 trillion or 15.2%), and the United Kingdom ($0.4 trillion or 6.2%).

Historically, the share held by foreign governments had grown over time, rising from 13% of the public debt in 1988 to 34% in 2015. In more recent years, foreign ownership has retreated both in percent of total debt and total dollar amounts. China's maximum holding of 9.1% or $1.3 trillion of U.S. debt occurred in 2011, reduced to 5% in 2018. Japan's maximum holding of 7% or $1.2 trillion occurred in 2012, reduced to 4% in 2018.

According to economist Paul Krugman in 2012, "America actually earns more from its assets abroad than it pays to foreign investors." Nonetheless, the US net international investment position represents a debt of more than $26 trillion.

Debt reduction proposals

Negative real interest rates

In the early 2010s, the U.S. Treasury had been obtaining negative real interest rates on government debt, meaning the inflation rate was greater than the interest rate paid on the debt. Such low rates, outpaced by the inflation rate, occur when the market believes that there are no alternatives with sufficiently low risk, or when popular institutional investors such as insurance companies, pensions, or bond, money market, and balanced mutual funds are required or choose to invest sufficiently large sums in Treasury securities to hedge against risk. Economist Lawrence Summers states that at such low interest rates, government borrowing actually saves taxpayer money and improves creditworthiness.

In the late 1940s to the early 1970s, the U.S. and UK both reduced their debt burden by about 30% to 40% of GDP per decade by taking advantage of negative real interest rates, but interest rates are not always that low. Between 1946 and 1974, the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio fell from 1.21 to 0.32, even though there were surpluses in only eight of those years which were much smaller than the deficits.

Raising reserve requirements and full reserve banking

In 2012, two economists, Jaromir Benes and Michael Kumhof, working for the International Monetary Fund, published a working paper called The Chicago Plan Revisited suggesting that the debt could be eliminated by raising bank reserve requirements and converting from fractional-reserve banking to full-reserve banking. Economists at the Paris School of Economics have commented on the plan, stating that it is already the status quo for coinage currency.

A Norges Bank economist examined the proposal in the context of considering the finance industry as part of the real economy. A Centre for Economic Policy Research paper agrees with the conclusion that "no real liability is created by new fiat money creation and therefore public debt does not rise as a result."

Economic risks and debates

CBO risk factors

The CBO reported several types of risk factors related to rising debt levels in a July 2010 publication:

• A growing portion of savings would go towards purchases of government debt, rather than investments in productive capital goods such as factories and computers, leading to lower output and incomes than would otherwise occur;
• If higher marginal tax rates were used to pay rising interest costs, savings would be reduced and work would be discouraged;
• Rising interest costs would force reductions in government programs;
• Restrictions to the ability of policymakers to use fiscal policy to respond to economic challenges; and
• An increased risk of a sudden fiscal crisis, in which investors demand higher interest rates.

Credit default

The U.S. has never fully defaulted. In April 1979, the U.S. may have technically defaulted on $122 million (~$424 million in 2024) in Treasury bills, which was less than 1% of U.S. debt. The Treasury Department characterized it as a delay rather than as a default, but it did have consequences for short-term interest rates, which jumped 0.6%. Others view it as a temporary, partial default.

The Fourth Liberty Loan of 1918 was not redeemed in gold but was paid in cash.

Debt ceiling

The United States debt ceiling is a legislative constraint on the amount of national debt that can be incurred by the U.S. Treasury. It limits how much money the federal government may pay on the debt it already has by borrowing even more money. The debt ceiling applies to almost all federal debt, including accounts owned by the public and intra-government funds for Medicare and Social Security.

Definition dispute of public debt

Economists also debate the definition of public debt. Krugman argued in May 2010 that the debt held by the public is the right measure to use, while Reinhart has testified to the President's Fiscal Reform Commission that gross debt is the appropriate measure. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) cited research by several economists supporting the use of the lower debt held by the public figure as a more accurate measure of the debt burden, disagreeing with these Commission members.

There is debate regarding the economic nature of the intragovernmental debt, which was approximately $4.6 trillion in February 2011. For example, the CBPP argues: that "large increases in [debt held by the public] can also push up interest rates and increase the amount of future interest payments the federal government must make to lenders outside of the United States, which reduces Americans' income. By contrast, intragovernmental debt (the other component of the gross debt) has no such effects because it is simply money the federal government owes (and pays interest on) to itself."

If the U.S. government continues to run "on budget" deficits as projected by the CBO and OMB for the foreseeable future, it will have to issue marketable Treasury bills and bonds (i.e., debt held by the public) to pay for the projected shortfall in the Social Security program. This will result in "debt held by the public" replacing "intragovernmental debt".

Interest and debt service costs

Interest expense on the public debt was approximately $678 billion in FY 2023. During FY 2023, the government also accrued a non-cash interest expense of $197 billion for intragovernmental debt, primarily the Social Security Trust Fund, for a total interest expense of $875 billion. This accrued interest is added to the Social Security Trust Fund and therefore the national debt each year and will be paid to Social Security recipients in the future. Since it is a non-cash expense, it is excluded from the budget deficit calculation.

The federal debt at the end of the 2018/19 fiscal year (ended September 30, 2019) was $22.7 trillion (~$27.8 trillion in 2024). The portion that is held by the public was $16.8 trillion. Neither figure includes approximately $2.5 trillion owed to the government. Interest on the debt was $404 billion.

The cost of servicing the U.S. national debt can be measured in various ways. The CBO analyzes net annual interest as a percentage of GDP, with a higher percentage indicating a higher interest payment burden. During 2015, this was 1.3% GDP, close to the record low 1.2% of the 1966–1968 era. The average from 1966 to 2015 was 2.0% of GDP.

The CBO estimated in 2016 that the interest amounts and % GDP will increase significantly over the following decade as both interest rates and debt levels rise: "Interest payments on that debt represent a large and rapidly growing expense of the federal government. CBO's baseline shows net interest payments more than tripling under current law, climbing from $231 billion in 2014, or 1.3% of GDP, to $799 billion in 2024, or 3.0% of GDP—the highest ratio since 1996."

In 2018, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) estimated that the U.S. government will spend more on servicing its debts than it does for national defense by 2024.

In October 2023, yields for 10-year Treasury notes breached 5% as traders adjusted their assessment of the United States' fiscal position and lowered their expectation that Congress or the White House would take action to improve it. The impact was felt by homebuyers, with the 30-year mortgage rate at its highest in two decades, and corporations facing higher costs of borrowing. Interest paid by the federal government jumped by $184 billion during the 2022 fiscal year and is still climbing.

Intergenerational equity

One debate about the national debt relates to intergenerational equity. For example, if one generation is receiving the benefit of government programs or employment enabled by deficit spending and debt accumulation, to what extent does the resulting higher debt impose risks and costs on future generations? There are several factors to consider:

• For every dollar of debt held by the public, there is a government obligation (generally marketable Treasury securities) counted as an asset by investors. Future generations benefit to the extent these assets are passed on to them.
• As of 2010, approximately 72% of the financial assets were held by the wealthiest 5% of the population. This presents a wealth and income distribution question, as only a fraction of the people in future generations will receive principal or interest from investments related to the debt incurred today.
• To the extent the U.S. debt is owed to foreign investors (approximately half the "debt held by the public" during 2012), principal and interest are not directly received by U.S. heirs.
• Higher debt levels imply higher interest payments, which create costs for future taxpayers (e.g., higher taxes, lower government benefits, higher inflation, or increased risk of fiscal crisis).
• To the extent the borrowed funds are invested today to improve the long-term productivity of the economy and its workers, such as via useful infrastructure projects or education, future generations may benefit.
• For every dollar of intragovernmental debt, there is an obligation to specific program recipients, generally non-marketable securities such as those held in the Social Security Trust Fund. Adjustments that reduce future deficits in these programs may also apply costs to future generations, via higher taxes or lower program spending.

Krugman wrote in March 2013 that by neglecting public investment and failing to create jobs, we are doing more harm to future generations than merely passing along debt: "Fiscal policy is, indeed, a moral issue, and we should be ashamed of what we're doing to the next generation's economic prospects. But our sin involves investing too little, not borrowing too much." Young workers face high unemployment and studies have shown their income may lag throughout their careers as a result. Teacher jobs have been cut, which could affect the quality of education and competitiveness of younger Americans.

Military implications

In 2011, in Debt: The First 5,000 Years, left-wing anthropology professor David Graeber argued the purchasing of U.S. treasury bonds by other countries makes them "to some degree beholden to U.S. interests, rather than the other way around" because the U.S. gains hard power in the transaction by spending their loan money on maintaining their hundreds of military bases throughout the world. Graeber compared this process with empires throughout history demanding tributes from subject countries to fuel military conquests, saying the only difference is that the U.S. uses implied threats to pressure the subject country into giving loans and that by using the language of debt, the U.S. falsely appears to be the lesser power in the transaction. Graeber argued if the U.S. were to lose its superpower status, the hard power threat underpinning the loans would be gone which would cause countries to distance themselves from U.S. treasury bonds and possibly demand full loan repayments militarily.

National security implications

According to a 2013 Forbes article, many American and other economic analysts have expressed concerns on the amount of United States government debt the People's Republic of China is holding as part of their reserves. The National Defense Authorization Act of FY 2012 included a provision requiring the Secretary of Defense to conduct a "national security risk assessment of U.S. federal debt held by China." The department issued its report in July 2012, stating that "attempting to use U.S. Treasury securities as a coercive tool would have limited effect and likely would do more harm to China than to the United States." An August 19, 2013 Congressional Research Service report said that the threat is not credible and the effect would be limited even if carried out. The report said that the threat would not offer "China deterrence options, whether in the diplomatic, military, or economic realms, and this would remain true both in peacetime and in scenarios of crisis or war."

A 2010 article by James K. Galbraith in The Nation, defends deficits and dismisses concerns over foreign holdings of United States government debt denominated in U.S. dollars, including China's holdings. In 2010, Warren Mosler, wrote that "When[ever] the Chinese redeem those T-securities, the money is transferred back to China's checking account at the Fed. During the entire purchase and redemption process, the dollars never leave the Fed." Australian economist Bill Mitchell argued that the United States government had a "nearly infinite capacity...to spend."

In 2020, against the backdrop of escalating Sino-U.S. tensions, Yuzo Sakai, a manager at Ueda Totan Forex Ltd., said that if China undertakes a massive sales of U.S. bonds, investors may flock to the Japanese yen as a safe-haven currency. Since 2018, China had been gradually decreasing its holdings of U.S. federal debt, bringing the total to $1.07 trillion in June 2020, behind Japan who became the biggest foreign creditor of the United States. Stephen Nagy, a professor at the International Christian University, said a sell-off by China "might damage the United States in the short term" but also cause "critical economic instability" in the Chinese and global economy. Jeff Kingston, a professor and director of Asian Studies at Temple University, Japan, echoed the view, adding that dumping would lower the price of U.S. bonds, making it more attractive to other countries. According to an institutional investor, however, it may be difficult for Japan to boost its already large holdings of U.S. government debt, as such a move could be seen as "currency manipulation".

Responding to Donald Trump's argument for a $500 billion increase in defense spending in 2026, Romina Boccia of the Cato Institute remarked that the Congressional Budget Office had already projected debt to rise to "fiscally dangerous levels" in the following decades. She noted, "Excessive debt slows economic growth, reduces income levels, raises interest rates, and constrains funding for core government functions, like national defense. ...financing a larger military by borrowing yet more, when interest costs on the existing debt already exceed what the nation spends on defense, becomes fiscally untenable."

Risks to economic growth

Debt levels may affect economic growth rates. In 2010, economists Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart reported that among the 20 developed countries studied, average annual GDP growth was 3–4% when debt was relatively moderate or low (i.e., under 0.60 times GDP), but it dips to just 1.6% when debt was high (i.e., above 0.90 times GDP). In April 2013, the conclusions of Rogoff and Reinhart's study came into question when a coding error in their original paper was discovered by Herndon, Ash and Pollin of the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Herndon, Ash and Pollin found that after correcting for errors and unorthodox methods used, there was no evidence that debt above a specific threshold reduces growth. Reinhart and Rogoff maintain that after correcting for errors, a negative relationship between high debt and growth remains. Other economists, including Paul Krugman, have argued that it is low growth which causes national debt to increase, rather than the other way around.

Commenting on fiscal sustainability, former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke stated in April 2010 that "Neither experience nor economic theory clearly indicates the threshold at which government debt begins to endanger prosperity and economic stability. But given the significant costs and risks associated with a rapidly rising federal debt, our nation should soon put in place a credible plan for reducing deficits to sustainable levels over time."

Sustainability

In 2009, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that the United States was on a "fiscally unsustainable" path because of projected future increases in Medicare and Social Security spending. According to the Treasury report in October 2018, summarized by Business Insider's Bob Bryan, the U.S. federal budget deficit rose as a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 signed into law by President Donald Trump on December 22, 2017 and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 signed into law on March 23, 2018.

COVID-19 pandemic and aftermath

The COVID-19 pandemic in the United States impacted the economy significantly beginning in March 2020, as businesses were shut-down and furloughed or fired personnel. About 16 million people filed for unemployment insurance in the three weeks ending April 9. It caused the number of unemployed persons to increase significantly, which is expected to reduce tax revenues while increasing automatic stabilizer spending for unemployment insurance and nutritional support. As a result of the adverse economic impact, both state and federal budget deficits will dramatically increase, even before considering any new legislation.

To help address lost income for millions of workers and assist businesses, Congress and President Trump enacted the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) on March 27, 2020. It included loans and grants for businesses, along with direct payments to individuals and additional funding for unemployment insurance. The act carried an estimated $2.3 trillion price tag, with an expectation that some or all of the loans would ultimately be paid back including interest. While the law would have almost certainly increased budget deficits relative to the January 2020 10-year CBO baseline (completed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic), in the absence of the legislation, a complete economic collapse could have occurred. As of 2023, many of these loans have been forgiven.

CBO provided a preliminary score for the CARES Act on April 16, 2020, estimating that it would increase federal deficits by about $1.8 trillion over the 2020–2030 period. The estimate includes:

• A $988 billion increase in mandatory outlays;
• A $446 billion decrease in revenues; and
• A $326 billion increase in discretionary outlays, stemming from emergency supplemental appropriations.

CBO reported that not all parts of the bill will increase deficits: “Although the act provides financial assistance totaling more than $2 trillion, the projected cost is less than that because some of that assistance is in the form of loan guarantees, which are not estimated to have a net effect on the budget. In particular, the act authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to provide up to $454 billion to fund emergency lending facilities established by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Because the income and costs stemming from that lending are expected to roughly offset each other, CBO estimates no deficit effect from that provision.”

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated that the budget deficit for fiscal year 2020 would increase to a record $3.8 trillion (~$4.52 trillion in 2024), or 0.187 times GDP. For scale, in 2009 the budget deficit reached 9.8% GDP ($1.4 trillion nominal dollars) in the depths of the Great Recession. CBO forecast in January 2020 that the budget deficit in FY2020 would be $1.0 trillion (~$1.19 trillion in 2024), prior to considering the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic or CARES. CFRB further estimated that the national debt would reach 1.06 times GDP in September 2020, a record since the aftermath of World War II.

President Biden also allocated significant amounts of money towards relief of the COVID-19 pandemic. According to a May 2021 report, Biden has or plans to spend $5.72 (~$6.51 trillion in 2024) trillion dollars toward this effort and others such as climate change including providing stimulus checks and serving schools and low-income children. Economists are divided if this unprecedented level of spending from the Biden Administration has, in part, contributed to the inflation spike from 2021 to 2022 as a result of increasing the money supply in the economy.

Appendix

National debt for selected years

On July 29, 2021, the BEA revised its GDP figures in a comprehensive update and figures back to FY1970 were revised accordingly.

On July 27, 2018, the BEA revised its GDP figures in a comprehensive update and figures back to FY2013 were revised accordingly.

On June 25, 2014, the BEA announced: "[On July 30, 2014, i]n addition to the regular revision of estimates for the most recent 3 years and for the first quarter of 2014, GDP and select components will be revised back to the first quarter of 1999.

Fiscal years 1940–2009 GDP figures were derived from February 2011 Office of Management and Budget figures which contained revisions of prior year figures due to significant changes from prior GDP measurements. Fiscal years 1950–2010 GDP measurements were derived from December 2010 Bureau of Economic Analysis figures which also tend to be subject to revision, especially more recent years. Afterwards the OMB figures were revised back to 2004 and the BEA figures (in a revision dated July 31, 2013) were revised back to 1947.

Regarding estimates recorded in the GDP column (the last column) marked with a "~" symbol, absolute differences from advance (one month after) BEA reports of GDP percent change to current findings (as of November 2013) found in revisions are stated to be 1.3% ± 2.0% or a 95% probability of being within the range of 0.0–3.3%, assuming the differences to occur according to standard deviations from the average absolute difference of 1.3%. E.g. with an advance report of a $400 billion increase of a $10 trillion GDP, for example, one could be 95% confident that the range in which the exact GDP dollar amount lies would be 0.0 to 3.3% different than 4.0% (400 ÷ 10,000) or within the range of $0 to $330 billion different than the hypothetical $400 billion (a range of $70–730 billion). Two months after, with a revised value, the range of potential difference from the stated estimate shrinks, and three months after with another revised value the range shrinks again.

Fiscal years 1940–1970 begin July 1 of the previous year (for example, Fiscal Year 1940 begins July 1, 1939, and ends June 30, 1940); fiscal years 1980–2010 begin October 1 of the previous year. Intragovernmental debts before the Social Security Act are presumed to equal zero.

1909–1930 calendar year GDP estimates are from MeasuringWorth.com Fiscal Year estimates are derived from simple linear interpolation.

(a1) Audited figure was "about $5,659 billion."

(a2) Audited figure was "about $5,792 billion."

(a3) Audited figure was "about $6,213 billion."

(a) Audited figure was said to be "about" the stated figure.

(a4) Audited figure was "about $7,918 billion."

(a5) Audited figure was "about $8,493 billion."

(a6) Audited figure was "about $8,993 billion."

(a7) Audited figure was "about $10,011 billion."

(a8) Audited figure was "about $11,898 billion."

(a9) Audited figure was "about $13,551 billion."

(a10) GAO affirmed Bureau of the Public debt figure as $14,781 billion.

(a11) GAO affirmed Bureau of the Public debt figure as $16,059 billion.

(a12) GAO affirmed Bureau of the Fiscal Service's figure as $16,732 billion.

(a13) GAO affirmed Bureau of the Fiscal Service's figure as $17,810 billion.

(a14) GAO affirmed Bureau of the Fiscal Service's figure as $18,138 billion.

(a15) GAO affirmed Bureau of the Fiscal Service's figure as $19,560 billion.

(a16) GAO affirmed Bureau of the Fiscal Service's figure as $20,233 billion.

(a17) GAO affirmed Bureau of the Fiscal Service's figure as $21,506 billion.

(a18) GAO affirmed Bureau of the Fiscal Service's figure as $22,711 billion.

Interest paid

According to federal government data, interest payment on debt has crossed above one trillion (that is, more than defence budget) on October 1, 2023, meaning a $3 billion-a-day interest payment.
Note that this is all interest the U.S. paid, including interest credited to Social Security and other government trust funds, not just "interest on debt" frequently cited elsewhere.

Foreign holders of U.S. Treasury securities

The following is a list of the top foreign holders of Treasury securities as listed by the Federal Reserve Board (revised by July 2026 survey):

Statistics

• U.S. National Debt Hits $38 Trillion (October 23, 2025)
• U.S. official gold reserves in July 2014, were 261.5 million troy ounces, with a book value of approximately $11.04 billion.
• Foreign exchange reserves of $140 billion in September 2014. The national debt was $80,885 per person in 2020.
• In March 2016, the national debt equated to $59,143 per person U.S. population, or $159,759 per member of the U.S. working taxpayers.
• In 2008, $242 billion was spent on interest payments servicing the debt, out of a total tax revenue of $2.5 trillion, or 9.6%. Including non-cash interest accrued primarily for Social Security, interest was $454 billion or 18% of tax revenue.
• Total U.S. household debt, including mortgage loan and consumer debt, was $11.4 trillion in 2005. By comparison, total U.S. household assets, including real estate, equipment, and financial instruments such as mutual funds, was $62.5 trillion in 2005.
• Total U.S. Consumer Credit Card revolving credit was $931.0 billion in April 2009.
• The U.S. balance of trade deficit in goods and services was $725.8 billion in 2005.
• In August 2014, the United States valued its foreign treasury securities portfolio at $2.7 trillion. The largest debtors were Canada, the United Kingdom, Cayman Islands, and Australia, whom accounted for $1.2 trillion of sovereign debt owed to residents of the U.S.
• The entire public debt in 1998 was equal to the cost of research, development, and deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons-related programs during the Cold War.

A 1998 Brookings Institution study published by the Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Committee (formed in 1993 by the W. Alton Jones Foundation), calculated that total expenditures for U.S. nuclear weapons from 1940 to 1998 was $5.5 trillion in 1996 Dollars. The total public debt at the end of fiscal year 1998 was $5,478,189,000,000 in 1998 Dollars, or $5.3 trillion in 1996 Dollars.

International debt comparisons

Sources: Eurostat, International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook (emerging market economies); Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Economic Outlook (advanced economies), IMF

¹China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand

²Afghanistan, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, People's Republic of, Fiji, Georgia, Hong Kong SAR, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Korea, Republic of, Kyrgyz Republic, Lao P.D.R., Macao SAR, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Fed. States of, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nauru, Nepal, New Zealand, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Vietnam

Recent additions to the public debt of the United States

On July 29, 2016, the BEA released a revision to 2013–2016 GDP figures. The figures for this table were corrected the next week with changes to figures in those fiscal years.

On July 30, 2015, the BEA released a revision to 2012–2015 GDP figures. The figures for this table were corrected on that day with changes to FY 2013 and 2014, but not 2015 as FY 2015 is updated within a week with the release of debt totals for July 31, 2015.

On June 25, 2014, the BEA announced a 15-year revision of GDP figures would take place on July 31, 2014. The figures for this table were corrected after that date with changes to FY 2000, 2003, 2008, 2012, 2013 and 2014. The more precise FY 1999–2014 debt figures are derived from Treasury audit results. The variations in the 1990s and FY 2015 figures are due to double-sourced or relatively preliminary GDP figures respectively. A comprehensive revision GDP revision dated July 31, 2013, was described on the Bureau of Economic Analysis website. In November 2013 the total debt and yearly debt as a percentage of GDP columns of this table were changed to reflect those revised GDP figures.

Historical debt ceiling levels

Note that this table does not go back to 1917 when the debt ceiling started.

Reference for values between 1993 and 2015:

Note that:

1. The figures are unadjusted for the time value of money, such as interest and inflation and the size of the economy that generated a debt.
2. The debt ceiling is an aggregate of gross debt, which includes debt in hands of public and in intragovernment accounts.
3. The debt ceiling does not necessarily reflect the level of actual debt.
4. From March 15 to October 30, 2015 there was a de facto debt limit of $18.153 trillion, due to use of extraordinary measures.

State and local government debt

U.S. states have a combined state and local government debt of about $3 trillion and another $5 trillion in unfunded liabilities.