The massive package of tax cuts House Republicans passed in May is expected to increase the U.S. debt by trillions of dollars — a sum that threatens to torpedo the legislation as the Senate starts to consider it this week.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates the bill, as written, would add about $3.1 trillion to the national debt over a decade with interest, to a total $53 trillion. The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimates a higher tally: $3.8 trillion, including interest and economic effects.

Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky was one of two Republicans to vote against the House measure, calling it a “debt bomb ticking” and noting that it “dramatically increases deficits in the near term.”

“Congress can do funny math — fantasy math — if it wants,” Massie said on the House floor on May 22. “But bond investors don’t.”

A handful of Republican Senators have also voiced concern about the bill’s potential addition to the U.S. debt load and other aspects of the legislation.

“The math doesn’t really add up,” Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, said Sunday on CBS.

The legislation comes as interest payments on U.S. debt have surpassed national spending on defense and represent the second-largest outlay behind Social Security. Federal debt as a percentage of gross domestic product, a measure of U.S. economic output, is already at an all-time high.

The notion of rising national debt may seem unimportant for the average person, but it can have a significant impact on household finances, economists said.

“I don’t think most consumers think about it at all,” said Tim Quinlan, senior economist at Wells Fargo Economics. “They think, ‘It doesn’t really impact me.’ But I think the truth is, it absolutely does.”

The House legislation cuts taxes for households by about $4 trillion, most of which accrue for the wealthy. The bill offsets some of those tax cuts by slashing spending for safety-net programs like Medicaid and food assistance for lower earners.

Some Republicans and White House officials argue President Trump’s tariff policies would offset a big chunk of the tax cuts.

But economists say tariffs are an unreliable revenue generator — because a future president can undo them, and courts may take them off the books.

Common forms of consumer borrowing like mortgages and auto loans are priced based on yields for U.S. Treasury bonds, particularly the 10-year Treasury.

Yields (i.e., interest rates) for long-term Treasury bonds are largely dictated by market forces. They rise and fall based on supply and demand from investors.

The U.S. relies on Treasury bonds to fund its operations. The government must borrow, since it doesn’t take in enough annual tax revenue to pay its bills, what’s known as an annual “budget deficit.” It pays back Treasury investors with interest.

More from Personal Finance:
How GOP tax bill could change in the Senate
3 key moves to consider while Fed keeps rates higher
Trump administration axes barrier for crypto in 401(k) plans

If the Republican bill — called the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” — were to raise the U.S. debt and deficit by trillions of dollars, it would likely spook investors and Treasury demand may fall, economists said.

Investors would likely demand a higher interest rate to compensate for the additional risk that the U.S. government may not pay its debt obligations in a timely way down the road, economists said.

Interest rates priced to the 10-year Treasury “also have to go up because of the higher risk being taken,” said Philip Chao, chief investment officer and certified financial planner at Experiential Wealth based in Cabin John, Maryland.

Moody’s cut the U.S.’ sovereign credit rating in May, citing the increasing burden of the federal budget deficit and signaling a bigger credit risk for investors. Bond yields spiked on the news.

For example, if the ratio were to rise from 100% (roughly where it is now) to 130%, the 10-year Treasury yield would increase about 0.6 percentage points, Zandi said. That would push the yield to more than 5% relative to current levels of around 4.5%, he said.

“It’s a big deal,” Zandi said.

A fixed 30-year mortgage would rise from almost 7% to roughly 7.6%, all else equal — likely putting homeownership further “out of reach,” especially for many potential first-time buyers, he said.

The debt-to-GDP ratio would swell from about 101% at the end of 2025 to an estimated 148% through 2034 under the as-written House legislation, said Kent Smetters, an economist and faculty director for the Penn Wharton Budget Model.

The market for long-term Treasury bonds has been more volatile amid investor jitters, leading some experts to recommend shorter-term bonds.

On the flip side, those buying new bonds may be happy because they can earn a higher rate, he said.

Of course, the U.S. debt burden is just one of many things that influence Treasury investors and yields, Quinlan said. For example, Treasury investors sent yields sharply higher as they rushed for the exits after Trump announced a spate of country-specific tariffs in April, as they questioned the safe-haven status of U.S. assets.

“But it’s not going out on too much of a limb to suggest financial markets the last couple years have grown increasingly concerned about debt levels,” Quinlan said.

Absent action, the U.S. debt burden would still rise, economists said. The debt-to-GDP ratio would swell to 138% even if Republicans don’t pass any legislation, Smetters said.

But the House legislation would be “pouring gasoline on the fire,” said Chao.

“It’s adding to the problems we already have,” Chao said. “And this is why the bond market is not happy with it,” he added.

A new Social Security Administration policy will require nearly 2 million additional beneficiaries to visit the agency’s offices each year to change their direct deposit information, according to agency estimates.

That’s often not a quick trip: Nearly one-quarter of seniors live more than an hour away from their local Social Security field office, according to a new analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Meanwhile, half of seniors need to drive for at least 33 minutes without traffic to get to their Social Security office.

The policy change will lead to more than 1 million hours of travel per year, according to the nonpartisan policy and research institute.

However, advocates say the change is an overreaction, given the scale of such fraud. The Social Security Administration has said about 40% of direct deposit fraud comes from phone calls attempting to change direct deposit information.

In early 2024, anti-fraud officials at the agency told The New York Times that about 2,000 beneficiaries had their direct deposits redirected over the prior year. By those estimates, that would mean just 800 of those people experienced direct deposit fraud by phone, according to Kathleen Romig, director of Social Security and disability policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Yet the agency is now requiring about 2 million elderly and disabled individuals to visit its offices to prevent such fraud, she said.

More from Personal Finance:
What the House GOP budget bill means for your money
Trump tariffs create the ‘perfect storm’ for scams
Social Security COLA for 2026 projected to be lowest in years

To help ensure benefit payments are not misdirected, the Social Security Administration has tightened beneficiaries’ ability to change their bank information over the phone.

As of April 28, individuals who want to change their direct deposit information will need to log into or create a personal My Social Security online account and obtain a one-time code before they call the agency’s 800 number.

Individuals who cannot use online or automatic enrollment services will need to visit a local field office to verify their identity in person. While the agency encourages those individuals to make an appointment, it is also possible to walk in for direct deposit changes.

Individuals who want to change their direct deposit information may also use automatic enrollment services through their bank. To do so, individuals need to contact their bank directly. Not all financial institutions participate in this process, according to SSA.

Because many seniors or disabled individuals do not have internet service, computers or smart phones — or if they do, may not know how to use those resources — many will likely have to make an in-person visit to their local Social Security office.

About 6 million seniors don’t drive, while almost 8 million older Americans have a medical condition or disability that makes it difficult for them to travel, according to CBPP research.

Notably, the new direct deposit requirements come as the Social Security Administration has moved to cut its work force by about 7,000 employees, reductions that have led some of the agency’s field offices to be “understaffed,” O’Connor said.

However, while it had been reported that DOGE planned to close Social Security field offices to help curb spending, thus far that has largely not happened, he said. The Social Security Administration has denied it plans to close local field offices.

Individuals who need to visit a Social Security field office will also be confronted by long wait times for appointments. Currently, just 43% of individuals are able to get a benefit appointment within 28 days, Social Security Administration data shows.

The agency’s new policy to limit phone transactions has been scaled back. The agency had proposed limiting the ability to apply for benefits over the phone, but after it received pushback from organizations including the AARP, the agency changed that policy to limit only direct deposit transactions.

As the Senate debates President Donald Trump‘s multi-trillion-dollar tax and spending package, there could be changes to the child tax credit, policy experts say.

If enacted as drafted, the House-approved bill would make permanent the maximum $2,000 credit passed via Trump’s 2017 tax cuts — which could otherwise revert to $1,000 after 2025 without action from Congress.

The highest credit would also rise to $2,500 from 2025 to 2028. After that, the credit’s top value would revert to $2,000 and be indexed for inflation.

But the Senate could have different plans, and negotiations will be “really interesting to watch,” said Howard Gleckman, senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

More from Personal Finance:
House Republican budget bill boosts maximum child tax credit to $2,500
What the House Republican budget bill means for your money
Why baby bonds and child tax credits can’t convince Americans to have kids

The proposed higher child tax credit comes as the U.S. fertility rate hovers near historic lows, which has been a concern for lawmakers, including the Trump administration.

Some research suggests financial incentives, like a bigger child tax credit, could boost U.S. fertility. But other experts say it won’t solve the issue long-term.

As the Senate prepares to debate Trump’s mega-bill, here’s how the child tax credit could change.

Vice President JD Vance, who formerly served as Senator of Ohio, floated a higher child tax credit during the campaign in August.   

“I’d love to see a child tax credit that’s $5,000 per child. But you, of course, have to work with Congress to see how possible and viable that is,” he told CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., in January also called on the Senate floor for a $5,000 child tax credit. His proposal would apply the credit to payroll taxes and provide advance payments throughout the year. 

“There’s some recognition here that they need do a little more,” Gleckman said.

House lawmakers in January 2024 passed a bipartisan child tax credit expansion, which would have improved access and retroactively boosted the refundable portion.

While the bill failed in the Senate in August, Republicans said they would revisit the measure. 

However, the child tax credit in the latest House-approved bill is less generous than the provision passed in 2024, policy experts say.

As written, the House plan provides no additional benefit to 17 million children from low-income families who can’t claim the full $2,000 credit, Margot Crandall-Hollick, principal research associate at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, wrote in May.