Trump Pledges $5,000 Payments to Adult Citizens If Republicans Hold Congress; Budget Group Puts Cost Above $1.2 Trillion
At the RNC's midterm convention in Dallas on Sept. 9, 2026, Trump said he would issue a $5,000 "dividend" to every adult U.S. citizen if the GOP keeps the House and Senate; he gave no funding or legal mechanism, and Republicans including Rep. Chip Roy objected on cost and on principle.
The Number Nobody Disputes and the Word Nobody Can Prove
Two things about Donald Trump's $5,000 pledge are true at the same time, and they don't sit well together. Every serious estimate of what it would cost lands in the same place, over $1.2 trillion[1][9]. And nobody, including the man who promised it, has said where that money would come from[1][5].
Speaking at the Republican National Committee's midterm convention in Dallas on Sept. 9, 2026, Trump told the crowd: "Because of our tremendous strength and success economically, I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for $5,000"[5]. He attached one condition: Republicans have to hold both the House and the Senate in November[1][8]. He attached one rule for spending it: the money has to stay inside the United States[1]. He did not say who qualifies, when checks would go out, or whether he'd even ask Congress to approve them[1][5].
That gap, between a specific number and no explanation of how to pay it, is the whole story. Everything else, the cost fight, the legal fight, the party-loyalty fight, is downstream of it.
A Company With 270 Million Shareholders
Trump's own explanation for the idea is an analogy: a profitable company pays cash back to its shareholders, and American citizens are the shareholders of the United States[5]. In this framing, tariffs are money collected from foreign producers who had been "taking advantage of America's workers," so handing part of it back isn't a handout, it's a refund on a gain the public helped create[12].
Vice President JD Vance tried to sharpen that pitch the next day, telling Fox News the president means "fundamentally a dividend for American workers," funded by tariff revenue, and suggesting wealthy Americans might not get a check at all[12]. That's a narrower, more targeted version than the flat $5,000-to-everyone number Trump used on stage.
There's math behind the shareholder story, and it's the part everyone agrees on. Roughly 270 million American adults times $5,000 comes out to about $1.35 trillion gross[1][7]. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a foundation-funded group that has pushed against deficit spending under both parties, put the cost for adult citizens specifically at more than $1.2 trillion in 2027, more than double what the government's yearly primary deficit already is[1][9].
To see how far that outruns the tariff money Vance is pointing to, you need the timeline of what happened to that revenue. On Feb. 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that a law called IEEPA, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, does not give a president the power to impose tariffs on its own[14][15]. That law had been the legal basis for most of Trump's tariffs. The ruling forced about $165 billion in refunds back to importers who'd already paid[21]. The government still collects tariffs under other, narrower laws, but those bring in roughly 60% of what the struck-down tariffs used to raise[18]. CRFB estimates the replacement tariffs will raise about $950 billion over the next 11 years, versus $1.7 trillion under the old regime[17]. A single year of $5,000 checks would eat up close to three-quarters of all tariff money projected over more than a decade[5]. It's also worth noting: this isn't the first time. Trump has twice before promised tariff-funded checks, a $2,000 dividend and a separate $5,000 "DOGE dividend", and neither materialized[1][20].
The Republicans Who Said No First
The sharpest pushback on the plan didn't come from Democrats. It came from inside Trump's own party, which matters because it's the group that would have to vote to fund it.
Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, who is retiring at the end of this term, calculated roughly the same $1.2 trillion figure CRFB did[3][9]. But his objection wasn't only about the price tag. It was about what the checks would do to people. "Some of us think dependency is evil & soul-sucking in all its forms," he wrote on X[3]. His counter-offer: instead of a check, cut taxes. He floated nearly zeroing out taxes for married parents earning up to $200,000, over 10 years, as a cheaper way to put money in people's pockets without routing it through Washington first[3].
Former Rep. Bob Good of Virginia, a past chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, was blunter. He called the plan a "socialist vote-buying scheme"[13]. Both men are drawing on the same well: the House Freedom Caucus wing built much of its identity opposing pandemic-era stimulus checks on nearly identical grounds. A Republican president proposing a bigger universal check than anything Democrats passed during COVID puts that wing in an uncomfortable spot, caught between loyalty to the president and the position they were elected to hold[3][13].
A Federal Statute With Two Readings
The other line of attack, mostly from Democrats and critics on the left, isn't really about the $1.2 trillion. It's about the words "if Republicans win."
CNN's analysis called the promise "crooked-feeling" and pointed out that Trump himself had once argued, of a hypothetical "vote and I'll pay off your tab" scheme, that it would amount to buying votes[7]. Fortune's headline went further, stating outright that Trump was trying "to bribe Americans to vote Republican"[19].
There's an actual law at the center of this: 18 U.S.C. §597. It makes it a federal crime to offer someone money in exchange for how they vote. Former federal prosecutor Barbara McQuade told Newsweek the statute's language "would seem to fit" what Trump described[10]. But other legal experts cited by the Associated Press pushed back, arguing the law is built around paying an individual to cast their ballot a certain way, and Trump's offer goes to everyone regardless of how, or whether, they personally vote[10]. No charge has been filed. No case has been brought. The statute genuinely reads both ways depending on how directly a court decides a payment has to be tied to an individual vote, which is exactly why lawyers disagree and why this will likely stay an argument rather than a prosecution unless someone files suit[10].
Two Numbers, Same Debt
Underneath both fights, the fiscal one and the legal one, sits a set of numbers that don't move no matter who's arguing. The federal government collected $195 billion in customs duties in fiscal year 2025[16]. The deficit for just the first eight months of fiscal 2026 was already $1.2 trillion, by the Congressional Budget Office's own count[16]. National debt stands near $40 trillion[9].
None of that makes a $5,000 check illegal or impossible. Congress can borrow money it doesn't currently have; that's ordinary for large federal spending. What the numbers do show is that the payment, if it happens, would be borrowed rather than paid for out of existing tariff collections, unless lawmakers cut spending somewhere else to offset it[9]. CRFB's Marc Goldwein makes the more basic point first: under the Constitution, only Congress can actually authorize the Treasury to send this money out. The pledge is a request to a body Republicans currently control, a body that already has at least two public no-votes on record[3][9][13].
How the Story Got Told Differently on Each Side
Coverage of the same speech split along fairly predictable lines. Fox News framed it around the debt, running headlines like "Trump dangles $5,000 checks as US debt surges" and routing its criticism mostly through other Republicans rather than raising the vote-buying question directly[12][13]. Fox Business stuck close to the CRFB numbers without characterizing the electoral condition one way or another[2].
CNN's news coverage was straightforward, but its labeled analysis piece led with Trump's past comments against paying people to vote, making motive the entry point rather than cost[7][8]. Fortune's headline stated "bribe" as its own word, not as something attributed to a named critic, which is a stronger legal claim than the lawyers themselves agree on[10][19]. Al Jazeera, reporting for an international audience, centered the affordability question and ran a separate piece on Trump's own supporters expressing doubt the checks would ever arrive, a framing that treats the story as one about U.S. fiscal credibility more than about domestic politics[5][6]. CBS News and The Hill largely let the numbers and quotes carry the story, without supplying their own verb for what Trump was doing[1][3].
What's left is a promise nobody has fully defined. Trump hasn't said how it would be funded, who would run it, or whether he'll put it in front of Congress before November[1][5]. Whether that happens, and what shape it takes if it does, depends on an election that hasn't happened yet, tied to a payment the election is supposed to decide.
Summary
On Wednesday night, Sept. 9, 2026, President Trump told the Republican National Committee's midterm convention in Dallas that he would send $5,000 to every adult U.S. citizen — but only if Republicans keep both the House and the Senate in November[1][8]. He called it "the Trump dividend" and compared it to a company paying cash to its shareholders[5]. He attached one condition on the money: it must be spent inside the United States[1]. He did not say who would qualify, when checks would go out, or whether he would ask Congress to approve them[1][5].
The pledge drew fire from both parties within a day[9]. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a deficit-hawk group, estimated the payment would cost more than $1.2 trillion in 2027 and would more than double the government's primary deficit — the yearly gap between spending and revenue, not counting interest on existing debt[1]. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), who is retiring at the end of this term, reached a similar $1.2 trillion figure and objected on principle as well: "Some of us think dependency is evil & soul-sucking in all its forms," he wrote on X[3]. Former Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.), a past House Freedom Caucus chairman, called it a "socialist vote-buying scheme"[13]. Vice President JD Vance defended a narrower version, telling Fox News the president means "fundamentally a dividend for American workers," paid for by tariff revenue, and suggested wealthy Americans might be left out[12].
The sharpest dispute is not over the price tag, which few contest. It is over the "if we win" clause. Critics say tying a federal payment to an election result edges toward vote-buying. Federal law, 18 U.S.C. §597, makes it a crime to offer money to someone to get them to vote a particular way[10]. Former federal prosecutor Barbara McQuade said the statute's wording "would seem to fit" what Trump described[10]. Other legal experts cited by the Associated Press disagreed, because the offer goes to everyone regardless of how any individual votes, and is not conditioned on a particular ballot[10]. No charge has been filed and no case has been brought.
A second fact sits under the funding claim. On Feb. 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not let a president impose tariffs, striking down the tariffs that had generated most of the new revenue[14][15]. The Court of International Trade then ordered U.S. Customs and Border Protection to refund about $165 billion to importers[21]. Replacement tariffs under other statutes cover roughly 60% of the blocked revenue[18]. Trump has twice before promised direct payments funded by tariffs — a $2,000 tariff dividend and a $5,000 "DOGE dividend" — and neither happened[1][20].
The Event
Speaking on the first night of the Republican National Committee's Midterm Convention at the American Airlines Center in Dallas on Sept. 9, 2026, President Trump said: "Because of our tremendous strength and success economically, I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for $5,000"[5]. He tied the payment to Republicans holding majorities in both the House and the Senate after the November midterms, and said the money would have to be spent in the United States[1][8]. He did not describe eligibility rules, timing, a funding source, or whether Congress would be asked to authorize the payments[1]. The next day, Vice President JD Vance told Fox News the president was describing "fundamentally a dividend for American workers" funded by tariff revenue, and indicated wealthy Americans might be excluded[12].
Undisputed Facts
- Trump made the $5,000 pledge on Sept. 9, 2026, at the RNC midterm convention in Dallas, and conditioned it on Republicans keeping both chambers of Congress[1][8].
- Trump gave no details on eligibility, timing, funding, or whether he would seek congressional approval[1][5].
- The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated the payment would cost more than $1.2 trillion in 2027 and would more than double next year's primary deficit[1].
- Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) publicly criticized the plan on cost and on principle, writing that "dependency is evil & soul-sucking in all its forms"[3].
- Former Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.) called the proposal a "socialist vote-buying scheme"[13].
- On Feb. 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that IEEPA does not authorize presidential tariffs; the Court of International Trade later ordered roughly $165 billion in refunds to importers[14][15][21].
- The federal government collected $195 billion in customs duties in fiscal 2025, more than 250% of the fiscal 2024 total[16].
- Trump previously promised a $2,000 tariff dividend and a $5,000 DOGE dividend; neither was paid out[1][20].
- 18 U.S.C. §597 makes it a federal crime to offer an expenditure to someone in exchange for voting or voting a particular way; legal experts disagree on whether a universal payment falls under it, and no case has been filed[10].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- A thin majority and a closing message
- Midterms usually punish the president's party. A single, specific dollar figure is the cheapest possible closing argument — it costs nothing to say and requires no legislative action before November[1][8].
- The revenue base shrank by court order
- The tariff money Vance points to was cut down on Feb. 20, 2026, when the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs[14][15]. About $165 billion was ordered refunded to importers[21], and replacement tariffs under other statutes cover roughly 60% of the blocked revenue[18]. CRFB puts the replacement tariffs at about $950 billion over 11 years, against $1.7 trillion under the struck-down regime[17].
- Only Congress can write the check
- Under the Constitution's appropriations clause, money leaves the Treasury only by act of Congress. CRFB's Marc Goldwein made this the first objection[9]. So the pledge is a request to a body that Republicans currently control and that has already produced public objectors[3][13].
- Deficit-hawk identity vs. transfer politics
- The Republican House Freedom Caucus wing built its brand opposing stimulus checks. A GOP-branded universal check forces a choice between loyalty and the position they campaigned on — which is why the loudest early critics are a retiring member and a former member[3][13].
Material realityThe arithmetic is the fixed part. There are roughly 270 million American adults; at $5,000 each, the gross bill is about $1.35 trillion, and CRFB's estimate for adult citizens only is above $1.2 trillion for 2027[1][7]. That is more than six times the $195 billion the government collected in customs duties in all of fiscal 2025[16], and roughly three-quarters of all tariff revenue projected over the next 11 years[5]. The deficit for the first eight months of fiscal 2026 was already $1.2 trillion by CBO's count[16], against about $40 trillion in debt[9]. Meanwhile the legal foundation of the tariff revenue was cut back by the Supreme Court in February and about $165 billion has been refunded[14][21]. Two earlier direct-payment promises — $2,000 from tariffs and $5,000 from DOGE savings — were never paid[1][20]. None of this makes the payment impossible; Congress can borrow. It does mean the money would be borrowed, not collected, unless Congress cuts elsewhere.
Narrative as a weaponThree groups are actively shaping how this lands. The White House wants you to see a shareholder payout — money taken from foreigners and returned to citizens — and to read the election condition as ordinary campaign math rather than a transaction[5][12]. Democrats and much of the center-left press want you to see the conditional clause first, because 'bribe' is a stronger word than 'unfunded,' and because arguing against $5,000 on the merits is a losing position[7][19]. Fiscal conservatives inside the GOP want you to see a spending bill, not a gift, and are deliberately reviving the language they used against pandemic stimulus to keep their own coalition from drifting toward transfer payments[3][13]. The one claim nobody disputes is the one the president did not address: he has not said where the money comes from, or whether he will ask Congress for it[1][5].
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asThe argument is that the country is a going concern with owners. Trump's analogy is explicit: a profitable company returns cash to its shareholders, and citizens are the shareholders of the United States[5]. In this telling, tariffs are money extracted from foreign producers and foreign governments who had been "taking advantage of America's workers," so returning part of it is not welfare — it is a refund of a gain the public created[12]. Vance's version is the strongest one: a worker-targeted dividend, possibly means-tested, paid out of a revenue stream that did not exist before and that voters can see in the Treasury's monthly customs numbers[12]. On the electoral condition, the administration's position is that a president can only deliver what Congress will pass, so telling voters what a Republican majority would do is ordinary campaigning, not a bribe. A White House spokesman said "President Trump has consistently proven his doubters wrong"[12].
WhyHold the House and Senate. A concrete dollar figure is easier to campaign on than an abstract economic record, and it reframes tariffs — which critics call a consumer tax — as something that pays voters back[12][19].
Impact on themIf Republicans lose either chamber, the promise expires with a built-in explanation. If they win, Trump owns a $1.2 trillion expectation he cannot meet without Congress, and budget hawks inside his own party are already on record against it[1][3][9].
Frames it asTwo objections, and the second matters more to them than the first. The arithmetic: Roy put the cost at $1.2 trillion in fiscal 2027, against a federal debt already past $40 trillion and annual deficits near $2 trillion[3][9]. The principle: mass cash transfers make citizens clients of the state. "Some of us think dependency is evil & soul-sucking in all its forms," Roy wrote[3]. Good's phrase — "socialist vote-buying scheme" — is the same charge in campaign language[13]. Their constructive alternative is a tax cut rather than a check, because a tax cut leaves earned money with the earner instead of routing it through Washington. Roy: "deficits aside – you could almost ZERO out taxes for married parents of dependents up to $200,000 over 10 years!"[3] They also note their party spent years attacking pandemic-era stimulus checks on exactly these grounds.
WhyProtect the ideological brand they were elected on, and keep a future spending fight from being pre-lost. Roy is retiring at the end of this term, which lowers his cost for saying so out loud[3].
Impact on themThey hand Democrats a Republican-sourced quote for the fall campaign. They also make the pledge harder to legislate, since House margins are thin and a handful of defections can stop a bill[9].
Frames it asTheir crux is not the cost — it is the conditional. A president is offering public money contingent on an election outcome, which they say inverts the relationship between government and voter. Federal law, 18 U.S.C. §597, bars offering an expenditure to get someone to vote a certain way, and former federal prosecutor Barbara McQuade said the language "would seem to fit"[10]. They add a consistency point: Trump himself once asked whether one is "allowed to go tell people that: 'Go vote. I'm going to pay off your tab,'" and answered that it amounted to buying votes[7]. A second line is credibility — the $2,000 tariff dividend was promised and never arrived[20]. A third is incidence: if tariffs fund the checks, Americans paid the tariffs at the register, so the "dividend" is partly their own money returned.
WhyDeny Republicans a simple, popular closing message, and keep the midterm argument on costs and governance.
Impact on themA cash promise polls well even when voters doubt it. Democrats risk looking like they are arguing against $5,000, which is why the framing is bribery and broken promises rather than opposition to payments as such[19].
Frames it asThe Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget — a deficit-reduction advocacy group funded largely by foundations, not a neutral scorekeeper — argues the money does not exist. Senior policy director Marc Goldwein makes two points: the president cannot send money without congressional approval, and the U.S. is already running roughly $2 trillion annual deficits against $40 trillion in debt[9]. CRFB estimates the administration's post-Supreme-Court replacement tariffs raise about $950 billion over 11 years, versus $1.7 trillion under the emergency tariffs that were struck down[17]. A one-year $1.2 trillion payment therefore consumes most of a decade of tariff collections[5]. Their broader claim is that borrowing to send checks raises interest costs, and interest is already the fastest-growing line in the budget.
WhyCRFB exists to push deficit reduction; it opposed pandemic checks and tax cuts on the same basis, which is both its consistency and its lean.
Impact on themIts $1.2 trillion number became the anchor figure in coverage across the spectrum, from Fox Business to Al Jazeera[2][5].
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 4
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CBS News | U.S. center | 2 | "At RNC midterm convention, Trump pitches $5,000 payments to U.S. citizens — but only if GOP wins House and Senate." | Puts the conditional in the headline without characterizing it. The framing device is the em-dash caveat and the flat note that no mechanism was given; it lets the omission do the work rather than naming a motive. |
| Fox Business | U.S. right | 2 | "Trump proposes $5,000 'dividend' for every adult US citizen if Republicans win 2026 midterms" — subheaded on the $1.2 trillion deficit effect. | Straight sourcing of the CRFB estimate, with 'dividend' kept in quotation marks. The angle is cost-to-the-balance-sheet; the electoral condition is stated but not examined. |
| Al Jazeera | Qatari state-funded | 3 | "Trump promises $5,000 payouts if GOP wins midterms: Can the US afford it?" and "Will Trump pay all US adults $5,000? Some Trump supporters are sceptical." | Poses affordability as the question and tests the promise against the unpaid $2,000 tariff dividend. Uses Trump's own supporters as the doubting voice — effective and non-partisan in tone, but it quietly reframes the story as U.S. fiscal decline for an overseas audience. |
| The Hill | U.S. center | 3 | "Texas Rep. Chip Roy on Trump dividends: 'Dependency is evil & soul-sucking in all its forms'" and "Trump faces blowback with $5,000 dividend promise." | Quote-forward and process-focused. "Blowback" and "faces" put Trump in a defensive posture, but both sides' specific numbers are carried without adjudication. |
| Fox News | U.S. right | 4 | "Trump dangles $5,000 checks as US debt surges" — and, separately, "GOP figures label $5K promise a 'socialist vote-buying scheme.'" | "Dangles" is a loaded verb, but the critique is routed entirely through Republican sources. The legal question under §597 is largely absent; the frame is intra-party fiscal discipline, not presidential impropriety. |
| CNN | U.S. left-of-center | 6 | News takeaways piece on the convention, plus a labeled analysis titled "Trump's crooked-feeling promise of $5,000 checks if Republicans win." | "Crooked-feeling" is a judgment hedged by a suffix. The analysis leads with Trump's own past statement against paying people to vote — a fair and strong point, but it sets motive as the organizing question before cost is addressed. |
| Fortune | U.S. center-left business | 8 | "Trump tries to bribe Americans to vote Republican with promise of $5,000 dividend — only if the GOP wins." | States "bribe" as the outlet's own word in a news headline, not as an attributed charge. That is a legal conclusion no court has reached, and legal experts quoted elsewhere are divided on it[10]. |
References
- At RNC midterm convention, Trump pitches $5,000 payments to U.S. citizens — but only if GOP wins House and Senate — CBS News · U.S. mainstream network news; center to center-left editorially
- Trump proposes $5,000 'dividend' for every adult US citizen if Republicans win 2026 midterms — Fox Business · U.S. right-leaning business network owned by Fox Corp.
- Texas Rep. Chip Roy on Trump dividends: 'Dependency is evil & soul-sucking in all its forms' — The Hill · U.S. political trade publication; centrist news, mixed opinion roster
- Trump faces blowback with $5,000 dividend promise — The Hill · U.S. political trade publication; centrist news, mixed opinion roster
- Trump promises $5,000 payouts if GOP wins midterms: Can the US afford it? — Al Jazeera · Funded by the government of Qatar
- Will Trump pay all US adults $5,000? Some Trump supporters are sceptical — Al Jazeera · Funded by the government of Qatar
- Trump's crooked-feeling promise of $5,000 checks if Republicans win (Analysis) — CNN · U.S. cable news, left-of-center framing; this item is a labeled analysis column
- Trump offers $5,000 dividend payments and other takeaways from GOP midterm convention Night 1 — CNN · U.S. cable news, left-of-center framing
- Trump's $1 trillion-plus 'dividend' plan meets immediate bipartisan pushback — CNBC · U.S. business network owned by NBCUniversal/Comcast; market-oriented, center
- Donald Trump $5,000 Dividend Promise Could Face Legal Challenges — Newsweek · U.S. digital outlet; aggregation-heavy, centrist-to-center-left framing
- List of Conservatives Criticizing Trump's $5,000 Dividend Payments — Newsweek · U.S. digital outlet; aggregation-heavy, centrist-to-center-left framing
- Trump dangles $5,000 checks as US debt surges — Fox News · U.S. right-leaning cable network owned by Fox Corp.
- Trump faces reckoning as GOP figures label $5K promise a 'socialist vote-buying scheme' — Fox News · U.S. right-leaning cable network owned by Fox Corp.
- Supreme Court Tariff Ruling: IEEPA Revenue and Potential Refunds — Penn Wharton Budget Model · University of Pennsylvania research center; nonpartisan modeling, academic
- Supreme Court Strikes Down IEEPA Tariffs: What Importers Need to Know Now — Holland & Knight · U.S. corporate law firm client advisory; represents importer-side interests
- Tariff Revenue Soars in FY 2025 Amid Legal Uncertainty — Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget · Foundation-funded deficit-reduction advocacy group; opposes both tax cuts and new spending
- Proposed Tariff Actions Could Raise Revenue by Nearly $1 Trillion — Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget · Foundation-funded deficit-reduction advocacy group
- Trump's replacement tariffs cover 60% of blocked import tax revenue — Axios · U.S. digital news, center; brevity-formatted policy coverage
- Trump tries to bribe Americans to vote Republican with promise of $5,000 dividend — only if the GOP wins — Fortune · U.S. business magazine; center-left framing on Trump-era policy
- Trump promised $2,000 tariff 'dividends,' but they still haven't materialized 10 months later — ABC News · U.S. mainstream network news; center to center-left
- Court of International Trade Orders Nationwide Tariff Refunds, But Expect Government to Appeal — Holland & Knight · U.S. corporate law firm client advisory; importer-side perspective
- Trump's $5,000 dividend to all adult citizens would cost way more than tariffs raise — Just the News · U.S. right-leaning digital outlet founded by John Solomon; carrying Center Square content