Republicans turn on Trump’s $5,000 voter ‘bribe’ desperately trying to avoid election ‘circus act’

Full account

Donald Trump has provoked unease within his own party after promising that every adult American citizen would receive a $5,000 payment if Republicans retain control of both chambers of Congress in November's midterm elections. Speaking at a Republican rally in Dallas on Wednesday evening, the US president framed the payment as a 'dividend' funded by what he described as the country's economic success, telling the crowd that the money would need to be spent within the United States. He offered no further detail on how the scheme would work, who would administer it, or how spending would be verified, and the announcement was met with loud cheers from supporters in the hall.

The pledge quickly drew criticism from figures within Trump's own political camp, several of whom compared it to vote-buying. Palantir co-founder and Republican donor Joe Lonsdale said he supported a midterm victory but was 'strongly against bread and circus bribes'. Texas congressman Chip Roy questioned how a sum he estimated at 'well over $1 trillion' could possibly be funded, while Senator Ted Cruz said the plan would cost 'a massive amount' and suggested payments should be restricted rather than universal. Kentucky congressman Thomas Massie, a frequent Trump critic, said he felt 'insulted' by the idea that his vote could be bought for $5,000 and joked that, accounting for the inflation such a scheme might cause, he would want at least double. Former congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, once a Trump ally, mocked the proposal as a payment for 'peasants' that would only be sent once the votes were safely in.

Beyond the political sniping, the practicalities of the plan attracted heavy scrutiny. With roughly 270 million adults in the United States, a universal $5,000 payment would cost an estimated $1 trillion to $1.3 trillion, a sum that commentators warned would widen the federal deficit, add to an already swelling national debt and risk stoking further inflation. Trump gave no indication of how Congress, which controls federal spending, would be asked to approve such an outlay, and legal experts cited by the BBC said it was doubtful a payment of this scale could be authorised through a presidential executive order alone. Vice-President JD Vance later suggested to Fox News that tariff revenue could help cover the cost and indicated that wealthier Americans would likely be excluded, though no formal proposal has been published. Democrats dismissed the whole pledge as an 'empty promise', and economist Erica York of the Tax Foundation said she would be 'extremely surprised' if Congress ever approved it, calling it one of the worst possible uses of $1.3 trillion at a time when deficits are already on an unsustainable trajectory.

Questions were also raised about whether the offer could be lawful, given that federal law bars payments intended to influence how someone votes. Legal academics were divided: Dr Joan Mahoney of the University of Southampton told the BBC she believed the pledge would likely be treated as an ordinary, if unusually explicit, campaign promise akin to pledging tax cuts, since the money would go to all citizens regardless of how they voted. Laurel Rapp of Chatham House took a more sceptical view, describing the offer as a markedly transactional arrangement unlike typical election-season promises. The row also revived memories of previous unfulfilled Trump pledges, including a $5,000 'DOGE dividend' and a $2,000 'tariff dividend', neither of which has materialised, though a smaller $1,776 'warrior dividend' was paid to around 1.4 million military personnel in December 2025.

• www.dailymail.com
• www.bbc.co.uk