10
Loading video...
By Aliss Higham and Hannah Parry
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
President Donald Trump has promised a $5,000 "dividend" to American adults if Republicans retain control of both chambers of Congress in November—but his administration and congressional allies are offering different explanations for how the massive payments would be funded.
Trump said Wednesday that the checks would be paid for through economic "growth." Vice President JD Vance has pointed to tariff revenue, while Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Thursday that the money would not come from taxpayers and suggested the administration could generate revenue through other sources.
National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett subsequently said the White House was considering using a congressional "reconciliation process" to fund the payments.
Read More on News
And Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio offered another potential mechanism: a permanent "market access fee" that would effectively function as a tariff and generate trillions of dollars over a decade.
The conflicting explanations come as Trump prepares Republicans for the November midterm elections and as the national debt has surpassed $40 trillion.
...
"If the Republicans win the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, both of them," Trump said at the Republican midterm convention in Dallas on Wednesday, "I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for $5,000."
Trump said the payment would be called the "Trump Dividend" and that recipients would have to spend the money in the United States.
Speaking with reporters at Dallas Fort Worth International Airport after his appearance at the convention, Trump said the checks would be paid for through "growth."
"We have tremendous growth," he said. "We have growth like no country has ever seen before."
"And don't forget, they'll be investing it, reinvesting it in our country," Trump added, referring to his requirement that recipients spend the money in the United States.
The pledge is the latest in a series of proposals from Trump and Republican lawmakers to return money to Americans through government savings or tariff revenues. Trump previously floated $2,000 tariff-funded payments, while, in early 2025, he backed consideration of a separate "DOGE dividend" (Department of Government Efficiency) based on savings identified by Elon Musk's government-cutting initiative. Neither proposal has produced payments to Americans.
"The doomers and naysayers have consistently doubted President Trump: when he pledged to create the historic Trump Accounts, lowered prescription prices with Most Favored Nations, secured the border with no crossings, cleaned up our streets, ended taxes on tips, grew real wages, renegotiated broken trade deals, and reshored key manufacturing back to the United States," White House spokesperson Davis Ingle told Newsweek when asked about how the payments would be funded.
"President Trump has consistently proven his doubters wrong, drawing a clear contrast with the Democrats’ record of historic inflation, unfettered illegal immigration, skyrocketing crime, and weakness on the world stage. With the continued support of the American people, President Trump will keep delivering real results."
The scale of Trump's latest promise, however, would dwarf those earlier proposals.
Administration Offers Different Funding Answers
Lutnick offered a different explanation Thursday.
In an interview with NBC News, the Commerce secretary said the payments would not rely on taxpayer money and argued that the administration could generate enough revenue to fund them without increasing the deficit.
"It's not tax money," Lutnick said.
He pointed to the administration's proposed Trump Platinum Card program, under which wealthy foreign nationals would pay $5 million for an expedited path to extend their U.S. visas. Lutnick said more than 100,000 people were already on a waiting list, which he suggested could generate $500 billion.
Lutnick also pointed to the federal government's investment in Intel, saying the administration's holdings had increased substantially in value.
But that example does not represent cash available to finance the checks. The administration invested $8.9 billion in Intel using appropriated CHIPS Act funds, and the shares had appreciated significantly by Thursday. The government had not sold those shares, meaning the increase in value remained an unrealized gain.
Other administration officials have offered yet another explanation.
On Friday, Hassett told Bloomberg Television that the White House was considering a "reconciliation process" in Congress to fund the payments. Initial estimates have put the cost of a $5,000 payment for every eligible adult at roughly $1.3 trillion.
Vance, meanwhile, suggested Wednesday that tariff revenue could be used to finance the dividend.
Moreno, who said he plans to introduce legislation for the payments after the November 3 election, described a longer-term approach.
"This is extraordinarily essential," Moreno said in an interview. He said his proposal would establish a permanent "market access fee" that could generate trillions of dollars for
Could Tariffs Pay for It?
Tariff revenue is one possible source. Vance suggested following Trump's announcement that the dividend could be financed through tariffs, and the president has repeatedly promoted tariff proceeds as a potential source of direct payments.
But the sums collected so far are nowhere near enough to finance a $1.2 trillion payment.
The U.S. collected about $195 billion in customs duties during the 2025 fiscal year, according to figures cited by The Associated Press, up sharply from $77 billion the previous year but still less than one-sixth of the amount required for the new dividend proposal.
Related Story
The Crude Honesty of Donald Trump’s $5,000 Dividend
The funding picture has also become more complicated since then. The Supreme Court struck down certain tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in February 2026, and, by early August, the government had refunded about $100 billion in duties collected under the invalidated measures, Reuters reported.
That does not eliminate tariff revenue altogether, because other duties remain in place, but it means the revenue stream Trump previously portrayed as capable of financing dividends is substantially constrained.
Tariffs are also collected from U.S. importers when goods enter the country, rather than being direct payments to the Treasury by foreign governments, and economists have said that at least some of those costs can ultimately be passed on to American consumers.
Government Spending Cuts?
Another theoretical funding route would be savings elsewhere in the federal budget, although Trump did not say Wednesday that spending cuts would fund his proposal.
There is precedent for the idea within his administration. In February 2025, Trump said he was considering returning 20 percent of savings identified by DOGE to Americans, after businessman James Fishback proposed using $400 billion in savings to finance $5,000 checks for taxpaying households. It is unclear how much DOGE managed to save in federal spending.
But any savings made by an administration initiative do not automatically become a pool of money the president can redistribute.
Without sufficient tariff revenue or spending cuts, Congress could approve the payments without fully offsetting their cost, effectively increasing federal borrowing. That would come as the national debt has already surpassed $40 trillion and the federal government is running an annual budget deficit of nearly $1.8 trillion.
When asked by reporters at DFW airport if he was worried the payments could impact the deficit, Trump said "no."
How Much Would the Trump Dividend Cost?
The Census Bureau estimated in its 2024 American Community Survey that there were about 245.3 million U.S. citizens aged 18 or older. Providing each with $5,000 could therefore cost roughly $1.22 to $1.23 trillion, not including any potential administrative expenses.
The precise cost would depend on who qualifies. Reuters, using a broader estimate of approximately 270 million U.S. adults, calculated a potential cost of about $1.35 trillion. Vice President JD Vance subsequently suggested that wealthy Americans might not receive the payments, which could reduce the total, although no income threshold has been announced.
Trump offered no detailed funding mechanism on Wednesday, instead attributing the proposal to what he described as the country's economic strength.
Republican Rep. Ralph Norman raised "serious concerns" with the proposal on Friday, adding in a post on X that, "We are already more than $40 trillion in debt, and I cannot support another massive spending package without a clear way to pay for it.
"Tying government checks to the outcome of an election starts to sound like pay-to-play politics," he wrote. "Republicans should earn the support of the American people through good policy, not by promising another round of checks from Washington. Meanwhile, the Senate has hundreds of House-passed bills waiting for action. Congress should be focused on getting that work done and putting our country on stronger financial footing. Show me how this is paid for without adding to the debt. Until then, I cannot support it."
Has Congress Proposed Dividend Checks Before?
Trump is not the first politician during his second term to propose returning tariff proceeds directly to households.
Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri introduced the American Worker Rebate Act of 2025, which proposed payments of at least $600 per adult and dependent child, with potentially larger rebates if tariff revenues exceeded projections. The bill has not yet advanced beyond its introduction and has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee.
Democratic Representative Henry Cuellar of Texas subsequently introduced the American Consumer Tariff Rebate Act of 2026, proposing direct payments to consumers following the Supreme Court tariff ruling, while excluding taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes above $400,000.
And after Trump's latest announcement, Republican Senator Bernie Moreno of Ohio said he intended to prepare legislation allowing Congress to pass the Trump Dividend after the November 3 election.
"I will get a bill ready so that we can get the Trump Dividend passed immediately after the Nov. 3 election," Moreno wrote on X. "Because Republicans (and America) will win!"
Would Trump Need Congress?
Almost certainly: the Constitution's Appropriations Clause provides that money cannot be drawn from the U.S. Treasury except through appropriations made by law. Executive officials cannot order Treasury payments without congressional authorization, even when the executive branch has other statutory or constitutional powers.
Marc Goldwein, senior policy director at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, likewise told The Associated Press that Trump does not have the authority to send the money without Congress.
That means Republican victories in November would not trigger $5,000 payments. Congress would still have to enact legislation authorizing and funding them, establishing who qualifies and determining how, if at all, the requirement that recipients spend the money only inside the United States could be enforced.
This could prove difficult. The government could theoretically impose restrictions on how the funds are transferred or require transactions to pass through traceable accounts, but monitoring individual purchases would be costly and administratively complex.
It could also be difficult to determine what qualifies as "spending in the United States"—for example, whether purchases from U.S. retailers that involve imported goods would count.
Economists say such a condition could therefore create substantial enforcement challenges while doing little to guarantee that the payments ultimately support U.S. production.
Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Ben Kelly, James Debens and Tony Phillips.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines