Trump’s Reckless $5,000 ‘Dividend’

National Review Online

Monday, September 14, 2026

 

During his address to the Republicans’ novel “midterm convention,” President Donald Trump plucked a new political promise out of the air. If the GOP keeps control of the House and the Senate, he vowed, he will send every American adult a $5,000 check.

 

As is his habit, Trump waved away any objections to this plan. Asked later if he would need Congress to agree to the payment, he said, “We think not.” Asked if it would add to the deficit, he said, “I’m not at all worried about that.” Asked why he couldn’t do it now, given that the Republicans already run Congress, he said, “Because they can’t. I’ll tell you what, because the Democrats can’t do it, because with them it’s negative growth. With us, it’s so positive.”

 

Glad we cleared that one up.

 

Not to be outdone, Vice President JD Vance got in on the action with nonsense of his own. Asked by Bret Baier about the potential consequences for the “deficit and debt” and “inflation,” Vance insisted that the checks could be paid for from tariff revenues. “We’re taking in an extraordinary amount of revenue,” he said.

 

None of this is true. In his speech, the president described the potential payout as a “Trump Dividend.” But this is a brazen misuse of that term. Were his plan to come to fruition, it would be good old-fashioned government spending — nothing more, nothing less. Under the U.S. Constitution, that spending would have to be authorized by Congress, not by the president. And, because the federal government is running multi-trillion-dollar deficits, that spending would have to be borrowed, which would increase the debt. If President Trump’s vow is to be taken literally, the cost would be between $1.3 trillion and $1.5 trillion. Adding that amount of money into the economy would undoubtedly make inflation worse, and, because it would eventually be paid back unequally via our highly progressive tax system, it would represent precisely the sort of “socialism” that Trump spent the rest of his speech in Texas denouncing. As for Vance’s preposterous claim that the project would be covered by the revenues from tariffs? The projected tariff haul in 2027 is $125 billion — less than 10 percent of the cost of Trump’s plan.

 

Reflexive apologists for Trump’s proposal have tended to focus on the sins of the other party — pointing, for instance, to the unnecessary and inflationary stimulus checks that the Democrats issued in 2021, and to President Joe Biden’s illegal attempt to forgive student loans. But this isn’t a defense, so much as a confession. Those policies were bad, and the Republican Party opposed them. That they were attempted was a disgrace; it was not a catch-all excuse for further reckless behavior. Whatever problems may exist in the American economy in 2026, there is no need for a round of debt-financed $5,000 checks. The central problem of our political era is the persistence of inflation and the associated increases in the cost of everyday goods. Trump’s suggestion would worsen, rather than improve, that issue.

 

The role of the federal government within the U.S. economy ought to be to provide a stable framework within which free people may thrive. When it taxes, it ought to tax predictably and consistently, with the purpose of covering its spending. When it spends, it ought to spend on those functions that only the national government can fulfill. President Trump’s proposal cannot be squared with the federal government’s proper role — nor, for that matter, can it be justly described as “policy.” Had he contrived it on the fly as he spoke in Dallas, it would look no different. This is no way to run a country.