There’s a certain swagger to the FY2027 budget request. You have to give it that.

It opens with the kind of language reserved for a turning point: a “historic paradigm shift,” a fiscal ship newly set on course, an end to “fiscal futility.” The message isn’t subtle—Washington has finally rediscovered discipline, and the era of excess is supposedly behind us.

Yet, just last summer, the same administration shepherded through a reconciliation package (remember the One Big Beautiful Bill?) that the Congressional Budget Office says will ultimately add roughly $4.7 trillion to the national debt through 2035.

To make the story work, the budget leans on one of Capitol Hill’s favorite magic tricks: baseline manipulation. When the reconciliation bill was considered in the Senate, it was measured against a special “budget enforcement baseline” that makes it appear to reduce deficits slightly. But measured against the real-world baseline—the one that reflects what actually happens to spending and revenues—it adds trillions to the debt.

The budget, of course, prefers the more flattering interpretation of the reconciliation law. It touts “nearly $2 trillion in savings” from the legislation. And if you isolate certain provisions, that’s technically accurate. But taken as a whole—the only way that actually matters—the law still drives deficits sharply higher.

To reinforce the message, the request is filled with colorful examples of waste. There are grants for gelato festivals, maple syrup programs, theater renovations, and other small-bore spending that practically begs to be mocked. And sure, some of that spending is silly. But it also isn’t the reason the federal government runs trillion-dollar deficits.

Meanwhile, the big-picture consequences are harder to spin. The budget proposes ramping defense spending up to $1.5 trillion—a 44 percent increase—while insisting that overall discipline has finally taken hold. There are cuts, to be sure, many of them politically charged and rhetorically satisfying. But they exist alongside major policy choices that move far more money in the opposite direction.

None of this is new. Washington has long excelled at declaring victory on fiscal responsibility while doing the opposite in practice. What’s striking here is the scale of the disconnect. The rhetoric isn’t just rosier than the reality—it’s almost entirely detached from it.