Lutnick and Musk Challenge GDP Norms: Is Government Spending Inflating U.S. Growth?

(Analysis) On Sunday, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick announced plans to exclude government spending from Gross Domestic Product (GDP) calculations, a move that could reshape how the U.S. measures economic health.

Speaking on Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures, Lutnick argued that including government expenditures in GDP artificially inflates economic performance metrics, calling for greater transparency.

“Governments have historically manipulated GDP by counting their own spending,” Lutnick stated. “I intend to separate these components to provide a clearer picture.”

His comments align with Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which has been aggressively cutting federal spending and workforce sizes.

Musk recently echoed this sentiment on social media, claiming, “Government spending doesn’t create real economic value.” Government spending currently accounts for about 6.5% of GDP.

Lutnick and Musk Challenge GDP Norms: Is Government Spending Inflating U.S. Growth?. (Photo Internet reproduction)

It contributed 0.25 percentage points to the 2.3% annualized growth rate recorded in the fourth quarter of 2024. Defense expenditures were a key driver of federal spending growth, which rose 2.6% last year, slightly below the overall economic growth rate of 2.8%.

Debating Government Spending’s Role in GDP

Personal income tied to government programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans’ benefits totaled over R$146 trillion ($24 trillion) in 2024, underscoring the sector’s significant role in consumer spending.

Critics warn that removing government spending from GDP could obscure the broader economic impact of public programs and services. For example, Musk’s cost-cutting measures could lead to tens of thousands of federal layoffs, reducing household incomes and consumer spending.

This ripple effect could hurt businesses and shrink private-sector activity, further complicating economic recovery efforts. Lutnick defended the proposal by distinguishing between productive expenditures and inefficiencies. “If the government buys a tank, that’s GDP,” he explained.

“But paying 1,000 people to think about buying a tank is wasteful inefficiency.” He emphasized that eliminating such inefficiencies would not only balance the federal budget but also lower interest rates for consumers.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis’ latest GDP report already provides detailed breakdowns of government spending, offering economists transparency into its effects on growth. However, Lutnick insists that excluding these figures will better reflect private-sector contributions to the economy.

The Trump administration sees this as part of a broader strategy to streamline government operations while spurring private-sector growth. Critics argue it risks downplaying essential public investments in infrastructure, research, and social safety nets that drive long-term economic stability.

Lutnick concluded optimistically: “Balancing the budget will lower interest rates dramatically and create the best economy anyone has ever seen.” Whether this approach clarifies or complicates economic measurement remains to be seen.