%20(3).png){kind=small}
![TFD [LOGO] (10).png](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/bea252_c1775b2fb69c4411abe5f0d27e15b130~mv2.png/v1/crop/x_150,y_143,w_1221,h_1193/fill/w_179,h_176,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_avif,quality_auto/TFD%20%5BLOGO%5D%20(10).png)
Trump’s $5,000 Dividend Draws Criticism Over Election Link
President Donald Trump's proposal to give $5,000 to every adult American if Republicans retain control of Congress has drawn criticism from political commentators and questions about whether linking the payment to an election result could constitute vote buying.
During a recent CNN discussion, conservative activist Terry Schilling defended Trump's proposal while host Audie Cornish and New York Times podcaster Lulu Garcia-Navarro challenged the idea. Garcia-Navarro characterized the proposal as a payment for votes, while Schilling argued that Republicans needed to win more seats and make the issue important to voters.
Trump announced the proposal at the Republican midterm convention in Dallas on Sept. 9, saying he would issue a $5,000 dividend to every adult US citizen if Republicans won both the House and Senate.
The proposal could cost more than $1 trillion. The Tax Foundation estimates that providing $5,000 to 250 million adults would cost approximately $1.25 trillion.
The proposal has also drawn criticism from Republicans. Collins said the plan appeared to have no income cap and would be extraordinarily costly.
Other Republicans have questioned its fiscal implications and whether Congress would support the payments.
The $5,000 proposal has been described by some critics as a form of vote buying.
However, the legal question is more complicated. Federal law prohibits offering something of value in exchange for a person's vote, but Trump's proposal, as currently described, would apparently make the payment dependent on the overall election result rather than on how an individual recipient voted.
Legal scholars have therefore debated whether it would violate federal election law. The proposal remains subject to congressional and legal questions, and no payment program has been enacted.
