People Stunned Seeing Staggering Amount of Trump’s First 100 Days Cost Compared to Same Period Last Year

When Donald Trump returned to the White House in January for his second term as the 47th President of the United States, he did so under the banner of reform, promising sweeping cuts, institutional shakeups, and a renewed commitment to fiscal discipline. His campaign rhetoric had painted a picture of a bloated government ready to be trimmed, optimized, and brought to heel under a bold new agenda. Yet, just 100 days into his second term, the numbers tell a more complicated story.

According to data compiled by CBS News, the Trump administration has already spent significantly more than the federal government did during the same period the previous year under President Biden. The staggering figure has stunned observers across the political spectrum, not least because it appears at odds with the administration’s repeated vows to curb excessive spending. Meanwhile, controversial measures—ranging from mass layoffs in federal agencies to the attempted elimination of the Department of Education—have added fuel to a fiery national conversation about what it really means to “cut costs” in government.

A Costly Return to Power — The Financial Footprint of Trump’s First 100 Days

In his return to the Oval Office, President Donald Trump’s second-term ambitions to curtail government spending have come under sharp scrutiny, particularly in light of newly released data comparing the first 100 days of his presidency to the same period under President Biden in 2024. Despite a platform centered on fiscal austerity and streamlining federal operations, Trump’s administration has spent approximately $220 billion more than its predecessor during the same timeframe, according to figures by CBS News. This has sparked public astonishment and debate, with many questioning the credibility of Trump’s cost-cutting agenda.

The financial paradox is striking. On one hand, the administration touts significant savings—reportedly $170 billion, largely through asset sales, canceled government contracts, and administrative restructuring. This effort is spearheaded by Elon Musk, whom Trump controversially appointed to lead the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Musk’s role is framed as central to eliminating wasteful government expenditure. However, these claimed savings have not yet been independently verified, raising concerns about transparency and measurable impact.

On the other hand, official spending metrics tell a different story. Government expenditure under Trump in early 2025 has surged beyond the levels seen at any point in the last decade, excluding 2021, when emergency COVID-19 relief packages dominated the federal budget. Among the largest contributors to this uptick are Medicare and Social Security benefits, both of which have seen spending rise by over $37 billion compared to 2024. Additional surges are noted in allocations for the Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, and notably, interest payments on Treasury securities—an area increasingly pressured by elevated interest rates and national debt dynamics.

The dichotomy between the administration’s messaging and its spending patterns has not gone unnoticed. Public reaction has ranged from confusion to outright skepticism. As one commentator put it on YouTube, “So much for the government spending cuts.” The contrast between the rhetoric of “getting rid of the fat” and the reality of soaring expenditures encapsulates the complexities—and contradictions—of governing in today’s polarized fiscal climate.

In sum, while President Trump’s second term began with a bold vision to slash costs and overhaul federal institutions, the early financial data paints a more complicated picture. The sharp rise in spending underlines the challenges of reconciling political promises with the practical demands of governance, especially in areas like social welfare and national defense where budgetary reductions are both politically and operationally fraught.

The Elon Musk Appointment and the Rise of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)

A hallmark of President Trump’s renewed push for fiscal reform has been the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency, dubbed “DOGE”—a nod, perhaps intentionally, to the cryptocurrency that rose to popularity with Musk’s endorsement. At the helm of this unorthodox agency stands Elon Musk, the tech billionaire whose portfolio includes Tesla, SpaceX, and formerly Twitter. The appointment has drawn widespread attention, both for its boldness and for the broader questions it raises about the role of private-sector figures in public administration.

Trump’s rationale behind Musk’s appointment is rooted in a belief that bureaucratic excess, inefficiency, and inertia are at the heart of government overspending. Musk, a vocal critic of what he’s often referred to as “bloated systems,” has been tasked with streamlining federal operations and identifying areas for cost reduction. DOGE’s reported success—$170 billion in savings through a mix of asset liquidations, canceled leases, fraud reductions, and workforce downsizing—has been heavily publicized by the administration. However, it is important to note that these numbers remain unverified by independent auditors, a fact that tempers the excitement among fiscal conservatives.

This unprecedented collaboration between a tech mogul and the federal government is not without precedent—figures like Eric Schmidt and Jeff Bezos have informally advised on innovation initiatives in the past—but Musk’s official appointment to a Cabinet-level role is a significant departure from tradition. Critics have voiced concerns about conflicts of interest, especially considering Musk’s extensive business holdings, which could potentially intersect with government operations or procurement decisions.

Proponents, however, argue that Musk’s outsider status and entrepreneurial acumen make him uniquely suited to challenge entrenched inefficiencies. The structure and scope of DOGE remain somewhat opaque, with limited public reporting on the department’s methodology or internal governance. What is clear, however, is that Trump is betting on an aggressive, Silicon Valley-inflected approach to public sector reform. Whether that bet pays off in lasting efficiency gains—or simply shifts the cost burden elsewhere—remains one of the central questions of his second-term legacy.

Where the Money Is Going — Key Drivers Behind the Spending Surge

While President Trump’s administration promotes aggressive cost-cutting rhetoric, the hard numbers tell a more nuanced story. The sharp $220 billion increase in government spending during the first 100 days of his second term, compared to the same period under President Biden, stems not from new social programs or infrastructure bills, but from a spike in mandatory and interest-driven expenditures that are far less discretionary than political soundbites might suggest.

A significant chunk of this spending surge is attributed to Social Security and Medicare, which have both seen increases of over $37 billion. These programs, which serve as the backbone of the country’s social safety net, operate on autopilot unless reforms are enacted by Congress. As the population ages and healthcare costs rise, expenditures naturally climb. Any administration, regardless of ideology, faces structural fiscal pressure here, especially without politically risky entitlement reforms.

Another substantial factor is the interest on Treasury securities, which has grown dramatically. The cost of servicing the national debt has ballooned due to a combination of elevated interest rates and an expanding debt load, both of which predate Trump’s return to office. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), interest payments are now among the fastest-growing segments of the federal budget, projected to surpass defense spending within a decade if current trends continue.

Defense spending under Trump has also increased, consistent with his longstanding platform of military strength and readiness. Though precise figures for recent allocations are still forthcoming, early signs point to renewed investments in modernization, veteran services, and international posture. This includes ramp-ups in cybersecurity, unmanned systems, and troop readiness—areas where Trump has historically pushed for enhanced funding.

Additionally, departments such as Veterans Affairs and Agriculture have seen budget expansions. In the case of Veterans Affairs, much of the increase appears tied to healthcare and benefits programs for a growing number of aging and post-9/11 veterans. The Department of Agriculture, meanwhile, is managing both ongoing farm subsidies and support programs linked to food security—an area receiving heightened attention amid global supply chain instability.

Controversial Cuts — Layoffs, Department Closures, and the Price of ‘Efficiency‘

While some aspects of President Trump’s fiscal policy are driven by economic inevitabilities, others reflect deliberate and often controversial decisions. Among the most headline-grabbing are the mass layoffs across federal agencies and the proposed elimination of the Department of Education, moves aimed at trimming what Trump describes as bureaucratic “fat” within the federal government.

In late March, Trump publicly defended the layoffs, stating: “We’re getting down to a point we think probably over the next two or three months, we’ll be pretty much satisfied with the people that are working hard and want to be members of the administration and our country.” The messaging underscores a sharp return to his first-term rhetoric—government as an overgrown entity that must be pruned for the sake of national renewal.

Yet the scope of the layoffs is significant. Reports indicate widespread workforce reductions across numerous departments, particularly in education, housing, and environmental regulation. The administration frames these moves as necessary to achieve long-term efficiency, echoing the ethos of Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). However, the human and institutional toll of such rapid contractions cannot be overlooked.

The decision to dismantle the Department of Education has faced immediate legal challenges, with developments already unfolding in federal court. Critics argue that the move threatens the continuity of essential public education services, especially those serving underprivileged and rural communities. Education experts warn that such a dismantling could fracture oversight, complicate the distribution of federal funds, and increase disparities across states.

Moreover, many of these layoffs and structural changes have prompted concerns about due process, transparency, and long-term governance capacity. The loss of institutional knowledge from experienced civil servants, combined with abrupt organizational shifts, has raised alarms among public administration scholars. As experts have pointed out, governments run on both vision and continuity. Purging staff without a clear plan for replacement risks weakening the very functions reformers say they want to improve.