Trump Administration Proposes New Economic Metric That May Downplay Government Spending

Washington, D.C. – Officials in the Trump administration are reportedly considering an alternative method of measuring the economy’s health, one that could shift focus away from traditional GDP calculations and minimize the impact of government expenditures.

The discussion centers around revising how gross domestic product (GDP) is reported, with some officials advocating for a measure that excludes government spending. Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk has been a leading voice in this push, arguing that traditional GDP figures can be inflated by government expenditures without necessarily reflecting genuine economic growth.

Currently, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) already provides a metric known as the Value Added by Private Industries (VAPI), which specifically tracks private sector contributions. However, the renewed interest in adjusting economic measurements has sparked debate, especially as Trump officials have floated the idea of selectively excluding certain types of government spending from GDP calculations.

Critics argue that this move could be an attempt to reframe economic performance in a way that downplays the effects of policies that may negatively impact growth. Doug Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum, questioned the approach, stating, “It’s a strange place to start—if you have the strongest economy in history, why would you need to measure it differently?”

Despite concerns over rising government spending, the federal government’s share of GDP has actually declined in recent years, as private sector growth has outpaced public sector expansion. Nevertheless, with the first GDP reading under Trump’s new term due next month, the administration’s stance on economic measurement is drawing heightened scrutiny.

Economic uncertainty has also been growing, with trade policies, government downsizing, and other regulatory changes raising concerns about slowed economic growth. Major financial institutions have adjusted their forecasts in response, with JPMorgan Chase lowering its GDP estimate for the first quarter of 2025 from 1.5% to 1%, while Goldman Sachs revised its year-end projection from 2.2% to 1.7%.

Musk and Trump officials argue that stripping out certain government expenses from GDP calculations would provide a more accurate representation of economic activity driven by private enterprise. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has indicated support for refining economic data but suggested a selective approach: “If the government buys a tank, that’s GDP. But paying thousands of people just to think about buying a tank? That’s wasted money.”

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has also emphasized a broader effort to “reprivatize the economy,” although he has not commented on specific GDP modifications. The BEA has not publicly responded to questions about potential changes to its reporting methodology.

The Trump administration has a complex history with economic data, often favoring metrics that present a more favorable view of growth. In his first term, Trump officials explored alternative methods of calculating GDP to highlight year-over-year changes more positively. At times, Trump himself dismissed economic reports he found unfavorable, with his former press secretary Sean Spicer famously stating in 2017 that jobs data “may have been phony in the past, but it’s very real now.”

Critics worry that the administration’s latest focus on economic metrics could be a strategic effort to deflect from potential economic downturns. Lindsay Owens, director of the Groundwork Collaborative, described the move as an attempt to “cook the books,” suggesting that it reflects concerns about recession risks.

However, some economists acknowledge that different administrations naturally highlight different economic indicators. For example, during the Biden administration, there was a significant focus on Black unemployment rates. Holtz-Eakin, while skeptical of the Trump administration’s push, noted, “It’s fine to emphasize different metrics, but there’s no reason to exclude data we’re already collecting. The BEA’s role is critical, and its work should remain untouched.”

All eyes will be on the upcoming economic reports to see how the Trump administration positions its economic narrative moving forward.

Also Read: Trump's 2nd-Term Tariffs Hit U.S. Economy at a Fragile Moment