Amanda Crouse
News Editor
On Friday, Sept. 11, Ohio Senator Bernie Moreno stated that he would author the legislation necessary to carry out a “Trump Dividend” of $5,000 to every adult American citizen, to be paid out only if midterm results favor Republican candidates. President Trump first mentioned the eponymous dividend during the Republican Midterm Convention in Dallas, Texas, on Sept. 9, but did not describe how the large payout would be administered.
“If the Republicans win the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, both of them … I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for $5,000,” Trump said, likening the move to that of a corporation paying its shareholders.
Later the same day, Moreno posted on X: “I will get a bill ready so that we can get the Trump Dividend passed immediately after the November 3rd election … because Republicans (and America) will win!”
A $5,000 dividend paid to roughly 240 million U.S. adults would run up a bill of $1.2 trillion dollars. However, Congressional approval would be needed for the payout to take shape.
Both chambers of Congress are scheduled to go on recess in early October, and will not return until the week after election day on Nov. 3.
During CNN’s “State of the Union” program on Sunday, Sept. 13, House Speaker Mike Johnson shared a different interpretation of Trump’s dividend promise.
“I think what he was articulating there is … he’s saying that if you want more money in your pocket, you have to keep Republicans in charge,” Johnson said, arguing that Trump was promising continued tax cuts under a Republican-controlled legislative branch.
Critics of the dividend have called it an act of bribery. In the U.S., it is illegal for candidates to make promises of money in order to influence voter selections.
Some of Trump’s supporters have argued that if the dividend takes the form of tax cuts, then it would not be illegal. The Supreme Court’s past rulings on bribery-related cases also indicate that, if contested, the dividend would likely not be considered unconstitutional.
