As Congress advances a budget resolution, setting the stage for another reconciliation process, the White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal remains the clearest statement of administration priorities and an important lens for evaluating longer‑term fiscal policy challenges.
At the Tax Policy Center’s and Urban Institute’s 37th Budget Roundtable on April 9, a bipartisan gathering of budget analysts, tax economists, and congressional and federal staff, one theme kept resurfacing: The White House’s is notable not only for what it proposes, but for what it leaves unsaid.
Historically, presidential budgets are statements of priorities more than comprehensive policy plans. However, many roundtable participants across perspectives and backgrounds noted that this year’s level of detail is especially modest given the scale of challenges across taxes, entitlements, immigration, health care, and long-run fiscal policy.
The toplines are sharp, but the fiscal strategy is thin
The administration proposes a 10 percent cut from 2026 non-defense levels while requesting $1.5 trillion for national defense, which the budget describes as a 44 percent increase from the prior year’s topline. Total discretionary budget authority plus mandatory resources rise from about $1.89 trillion in 2026 to about $2.18 trillion in 2027, almost entirely because defense rises while non-defense shrinks.
The Department of Health and Human Services would receive $111.1 billion in discretionary budget authority, down $15.8 billion, or 12.5 percent, from the 2026 enacted level. The budget also shows steep cuts for the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, and the Small Business Administration.
Although the plan lacks the deficit and debt projections customarily included in these documents, several participants noted it would reach a 3 percent of GDP deficit target by the end of the ten-year budget window. However, this relies heavily on an assumed “2-penny” plan, or two-percent annual reduction in non-defense discretionary spending after fiscal 2027.
Many participants questioned how the tradeoffs would work in practice and whether such deep non-defense cuts are politically plausible.
The growth assumptions do a lot of work
Many participants were also skeptical of the administration’s economic assumptions. The budget projects real average annual growth in gross domestic product of 3 percent through the forecast window. This compares to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)’s less than 2 percent.
The budget also assumes the 10-year Treasury rate falls to 3.5 percent in 2027 and 3.3 percent from 2030 onward, while unemployment settles at 3.7 percent for the rest of the period. This compares to figures north of 4 percent for both measures from CBO.
At the same time, some roundtable participants noted reasons for optimism on economic growth, especially from artificial intelligence (AI). But even if AI boosts productivity, that growth could be concentrated in specific industries or sectors, putting additional pressure on domestic spending programs.
Immigration is central to the budget story
The budget proposal requests $63 billion in discretionary authority for DHS, including $18.5 billion for Customs and Border Protection and $10 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But several roundtable participants emphasized the other side of the equation: Immigration is also a major source of labor force growth. That matters for gross domestic product (GDP), for Social Security financing, and for the health and long-term care workforce an aging population will need.
Taxes and entitlements remain largely offstage
Taxes were mostly absent from the administration’s budget, but not from the discussion, which quickly turned to looming tax cliffs, including the expiration of temporary “no tax on” provisions in last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). Several participants worried that both parties may be drifting toward a politics of tax exemption rather than tax reform, making the code more complicated, more fragmented, less stable, and harder to administer.
Some were equally pointed about entitlements. In their view, the budget largely avoids the government’s biggest long-term fiscal pressures. It offers little sign of a strategy for dealing with trust-fund exhaustion, health care cost growth, or the interaction between demographics, immigration, and social insurance financing.
The real problem is political, not technical
The roundtable closed on a familiar question: What will force action on the deficit? Participants pointed to two possible sources of pressure, voters and bond markets. But there was little confidence that either would produce timely, well-considered reform.
That may have been the day’s clearest takeaway. Now is the time to take advantage of significant overlap among analysts across the ideological spectrum on actionable solutions and start creating the necessary roadmap and political momentum for change.
