Former Treasury Secretaries Robert E. Rubin and Lawrence H. Summers are calling out what they say is a dangerous falsehood at the heart of President Donald Trump’s latest economic message: his claim that he’s “restoring fiscal sanity” to the nation.
In a joint op-ed published by The New York Times, Rubin and Summers—who both served under President Bill Clinton—warned that while the economic challenges of today mirror those of the 1990s, Trump’s response is the opposite of responsible.
“Back then, we hoped for the best but planned conservatively,” they wrote. “We combined deficit reduction with investments in growth, triggering a virtuous cycle: falling interest rates, rising business confidence, and economic expansion. Fiscal responsibility, paired with respect for the Federal Reserve and a strong dollar, helped keep inflation in check.”
READ MORE: ‘Break a promise’: GOP senator swore at Trump in heated exchange over bill
By contrast, Trump’s approach—gutting revenue, undermining the Fed, imposing chaotic tariffs, and passing a “budget-busting” legislative package—threatens to send the economy into dangerous territory, they warned.
According to Rubin and Summers, if Trump’s so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” becomes law, the national debt could soar to 135% of GDP within a decade, with annual deficits approaching 8% of GDP by 2035—levels that would have serious long-term consequences. Among them: higher interest rates, reduced private investment, falling business confidence, and slower economic growth.
They also blasted the Trump administration for its reliance on “budgetary gimmicks and magical thinking” instead of sound analysis. While the Clinton administration leaned on the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and was open to politically difficult tax increases to preserve fiscal health, they said Trump’s team is slashing the IRS and “pretending” to find $2 trillion in savings—moves that could actually cost the nation hundreds of billions.
“This is not fiscal discipline. It’s fiscal recklessness dressed up in populist rhetoric,” they wrote. “What we need is a return to policies that bring our debt-to-GDP ratio down—not send it even higher.”
Their bottom line: “A responsible Congress would reject this bill outright. Anything less is a betrayal of future generations.”
