In the 2020 U.S. presidential race, Democratic candidates spent a total of roughly **** billion U.S. dollars, more than any other election. The total spending of presidential candidates is reflected in the number of major presidential candidates running. See here for more information on how many candidates have run in past U.S. elections.

Adding to national debt is an inevitable fact of being President of the United States. The extent to which debt rises under any sitting president depends not only on the policy and spending choices they have made, but also the choices made by presidents and congresses that have come before them. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush President Ronald Reagan increased the U.S. debt by around **** trillion U.S. dollars, or ****** percent. This is often attributed to "Reaganomics," in which Reagan implemented significant supply-side economic policies in which he reduced government regulation, cut taxes, and tightened the money supply. Spending increased under President George W. Bush in light of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. To finance the wars, President Bush chose to borrow the money, rather than use war bonds or increase taxes, unlike previous war-time presidents. Additionally, Bush introduced a number of tax cuts, and oversaw the beginning of the 2008 financial crisis. Barack Obama President Obama inherited both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the financial crisis. The Obama administration also did not increase taxes to pay for the wars, and additionally passed expensive legislation to kickstart the economy following the economic crash, as well as the Affordable Care Act in 2010. The ACA expanded healthcare coverage to cover more than ** million more Americans through programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Though controversial at the time, more than half of Americans have a favorable view of the ACA in 2023. Additionally, he signed legislation making the W. Bush-era tax cuts permanent.

Office of the President 104 Annual Financial Report

This graph shows the spending for Presidential Campaign financing of the Republican Party's candidates in each election cycle in the U.S. from 1979 to 2020. As of January 2021, in the 2-year election period between 2019 and 2020 around 793.88 million U.S. dollars were spent by Republican presidential candidates.

Office of the President's Statement of Final Accounts for the 103rd Year

Graph and download economic data for Federal Surplus or Deficit - from 1901 to 2024 about budget, federal, and USA.

Graph and download economic data for Federal Surplus or Deficit [-] as Percent of Gross Domestic Product (FYFSGDA188S) from 1929 to 2024 about budget, federal, GDP, and USA.

Russia Federal Government Expenditure: Year to Date: General Govt: President data was reported at 21.763 RUB bn in Jul 2022. This records an increase from the previous number of 18.668 RUB bn for Jun 2022. Russia Federal Government Expenditure: Year to Date: General Govt: President data is updated monthly, averaging 5.217 RUB bn from Jan 2005 (Median) to Jul 2022, with 211 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 27.453 RUB bn in Dec 2021 and a record low of 0.200 RUB bn in Jan 2005. Russia Federal Government Expenditure: Year to Date: General Govt: President data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Federal Treasury. The data is categorized under Russia Premium Database’s Government and Public Finance – Table RU.FB004: Federal Government Expenditure: ytd.

This graph shows the spending for presidential campaign financing of the Democratic Party's candidates in each election cycle in the U.S. from 1979 to 2024. As of November, around **** billion U.S. dollars had been spent by Democratic presidential candidates throughout the election period.

In 2023, the U.S. government had a budget deficit of 1.69 trillion U.S. dollars. This is compared to 2000, when the government had a budget surplus of 0.24 trillion U.S. dollars.

U.S. Government budget

The government budget is a financial statement that demonstrates the government’s suggested revenues and spending for the financial year. Budget surpluses occur when income exceeds expenditures. Budget deficits occur when spending exceeds income. The budget balance of the U.S. government has fluctuated since 2016, and is expected to decrease slightly by 2026.

Military spending

Defense outlays in the United States amounted to 714 billion U.S. dollars in 2020. It is expected to continue to increase over the next several years. The United States currently has the largest defense budget in the world, and is the largest employer in the world. The military budget funds the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force. The amount of funding that goes towards the Department of Defense is heavily criticized by Democrats in the United States, because they believe that the funding should be more evenly distributed towards other social welfare programs such as public health insurance and education.

The yearly Supplement to the Presidents Budget for the NITRD Program is designed to present a succinct technical summary of the research activities planned and coordinated through NITRD in a given Federal budget cycle, as required by law. The Supplement is organized by PCA, to align with the structure of the Program. Every PCA section follows the same format, so that readers can quickly identify: The NITRD member agencies and participating agencies active in the PCA; The definition of the research covered in the PCA;The interagency strategic priorities in the PCA for the forthcoming fiscal year; Budget highlights ? agencies key RD programs and topical emphases in the PCA for the forthcoming year; Interagency coordination ? current and planned activities in which multiple agencies are collaborating; Ongoing core activities of each agency in the PCA; The NITRD Supplement also includes an annual budget table and budget analysis section, organized by PCA and by agency, to facilitate budgetary and programmatic comparisons from year to year.The Supplement itself is a product of NITRD coordination: The text is developed, revised, reviewed, and approved by the NITRD agencies in a collaborative process over a six-month period prior to the release of the Presidents budget. The process begins with an Annual Planning Meeting APM in each NITRD PCA. In these day-long gatherings, agency representatives present briefings summarizing their agencies IT research priorities, program plans, and current activities in the PCA. Following the briefings, the agencies discuss shared research issues and plan cooperative activities. The Supplements PCA sections are based on the APM discussions and subsequent refining of the text by the agencies. For example, the IWG and CG members review and update their PCAs definition statement and interagency R and D priorities to reflect evolution of key technologies and associated research challenges that agencies face in common. The agencies report on their collaborative efforts to address such challenges in the PCA subsection called Planning and Coordination Supporting Request.NITRD agencies engaged in R and D and coordination activities cited in the Supplement are listed in NITRD budget order, followed by the participating agencies. If there is a lead agency for the activity, that agency is listed first; agencies listed after the word with are in-kind contributors rather than funders or performers. Some large-scale activities may be cited in more than one PCA because they involve R and D efforts in a variety of technologies. In such cases, agencies report the portion of program funding in each relevant PCA.The President`s 2012 budget request for the NITRD Program is $3.866 billion; 2010 NITRD actual expenditures totaled $3.793 billion. Details of the budget are presented in the table on page 28 and discussed in the budget analysis section beginning on page 30.

Previous scholarship argues that House members’ partisan relationship to the president is among the most important determinants of the share of federal dollars they bring home to their constituents. Do presidential politics also shape distributive outcomes in the Senate? Analyzing the allocation of more than $8.5 trillion of federal grants across the states from 1984 to 2008, we show that presidential copartisan senators are more successful than opposition party members in securing federal dollars for their home states. Moreover, presidents appear to target grants ex post to states that gain presidential copartisans in recent elections.

This poll, fielded October 27-29, 1996, is part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicit public opinion on the presidency and on a range of other political and social issues. Respondents were asked to give their opinions of President Bill Clinton and his handling of the presidency. Those polled rated the condition of the national economy and gave their opinions of Vice President Al Gore, First Lady Hillary Clinton, the United States Congress, and the presidential and vice presidential candidates in the upcoming election. Opinions were elicited on the 1996 presidential and congressional elections, the likelihood that respondents would vote, for whom they would vote, what issue the next administration should focus on, and whether America was ready to elect a Black or female president. Views were also sought on the presidential campaign, including campaign spending, length of the campaign season, and media coverage, as well as respondents' preferred voting methods and their voter registration history. Several questions asked about the Whitewater inquiry, foreign campaign contributions accepted by the Democratic Party, and how the next administration should handle issues such as education and crime. Others topics addressed feelings about the federal government, the federal budget deficit, taxes, Social Security, holiday spending, crime in the respondent's community, and whether the United States had a responsibility to provide military assistance around the world. Information was also collected on whether respondents had contacted their member of Congress in the past two years, whether they had lived in the same community for the past two years, and how often they watched comedians on late-night television. Demographic variables include sex, race, age, household income, education level, political party affiliation, political philosophy, voter participation history and registration status, and type of residential area (e.g., urban or rural).

Do voters reward presidents for increased federal spending in their local constituencies? Previous research on the electoral consequences of federal spending has focused almost exclusively on Congress, mostly with null results. In a county- and individual-level study of presidential elections from 1988 to 2008, we present evidence that voters reward incumbent presidents (or their party's nominee) for increased federal spending in their communities. This relationship is stronger in battleground states. Furthermore, we show that federal grants are an electoral currency whose value depends on both the clarity of partisan responsibility for its provision and the characteristics of the recipients. Presidents enjoy increased support from spending in counties represented by co-partisan members of Congress. We also find that at the individual level ideology conditions the response of constituents to spending; liberal and moderate voters reward presidents for federal spending at higher levels than conservatives. Our results suggest that although voters may claim to favor deficit reduction, the presidents who deliver such benefits are rewarded at the ballot box.

The United States recorded a Government Debt to GDP of 124.30 percent of the country's Gross Domestic Product in 2024. This dataset provides - United States Government Debt To GDP - actual values, historical data, forecast, chart, statistics, economic calendar and news.

The President's Office's Unit Final Statement for the Year 104

Public information: refers to various financial statistics reports, policy news, information services, laws, and other related data sets.

The United States federal government budget has allotted around ** billion dollars toward its 2025 civilian federal agency information technology budget. As leadership and government priorities change, the IT budgets allocated to different departments tend to follow suit. The Department of Energy's IT budget increased significantly by ** percent compared to the previous year, with *** billion U.S. dollars allocated in FY 2025. Similarly, the IT budget of the Department of Homeland security also increased by ** percent compared to the previous year, to around ** billion U.S. dollars for FY 2025. Meanwhile, the Office of Personnel Management saw its IT budget shrink the most among the civilian federal government agencies, decreasing by a staggering ** percent compared to FY 2024. Since the 2022 federal budget, figures do not include the portion of the budget allocated to the Department of Defense or other classified IT spending. U.S. government budget In the United States, huge shares of government expenditures go towards the Department of Health and Human Services as well as the Social Security Administration. Due in part to the country’s continually increasing budget, the government has run at an annual deficit since 2002, with its 2024 deficit estimated to over be around *** trillion dollars. Cybersecurity budget One of the main facets of the U.S. government IT budget is spending related to cybersecurity. Over ** billion U.S. dollars have been allocated towards cybersecurity in 2024. The Departments of Homeland Security and Justice have unsurprisingly had the highest cybersecurity budgets across all departments, given the sensitive nature of their work.

This data collection offers detailed tabulations of political campaign expenditures and contributions. Party and non-party committee information provided in parts 1-8 includes the committee name and special interest group designation, gross receipts, transfers, loans, both cash and in-kind contributions, gross disbursements, debts, contributions to House, Senate, and Presidential candidates, and expenditures made on behalf of those candidates. For parts 9 and 10, the House and Senate files, data are supplied on candidate name, incumbency status, party, receipts, transfers, disbursements, number and dollar amounts of individual contributions, contributions from major parties, from corporations, and from labor, independent expenditures for and against the candidate, and percentage of the November 1980 general election vote received. Parts 11 and 12, the Presidential Pre-Nomination Campaigns files, contain data on candidate name and party, total receipts, transfers, exempt fundraising, federal matching funds, contributions from candidate and other sources, independent expenditures for and against the candidate, debts, and total expenditures made in each state by candidates receiving federal matching funds. Part 13 specifies for each state the legal spending limit in 1980 for candidates eligible to receive federal matching funds. (Source: downloaded from ICPSR 7/13/10)

Please Note: This dataset is part of the historical CISER Data Archive Collection and is also available at ICPSR at https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR08158.v1. We highly recommend using the ICPSR version as they may make this dataset available in multiple data formats in the future.

This data package includes the underlying data to replicate the charts, tables, and calculations presented in The US Revenue Implications of President Trump’s 2025 Tariffs, PIIE Briefing 25-2.

If you use the data, please cite as:

McKibbin, Warwick, and Geoffrey Shuetrim. 2025. The US Revenue Implications of President Trump’s 2025 Tariffs. PIIE Briefing 25-2. Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics.