THE MOST EFFECTIVE ARGUMENT AGAINST TRUMP'S BRIBE

This is an empty promise, but I worry that it might sway some voters:

President Donald Trump pledged Wednesday to send every American adult $5,000 if Republicans retain control of the House and Senate in the midterm elections, an extraordinary gambit to reverse his party’s sagging fortunes in November....

“If the Republicans win, you win with us and you get $5,000,” Trump said during the GOP’s midterm convention in Dallas. “It will be called the Trump Dividend.”

That's from AP, which calls the plan "dubious" in its headline, as does The New York Times. Politico calls it "a hot mess of a half-baked midterm promise." The Daily Beast seems to be the only mainstream news outlet that included the word "bribe" in its headline. ("Desperate Trump Offers Brazen Cash Bribe in Bonkers Speech").

Raw Story notes that this promise appears to violate a number of federal laws:

“The primary legal threat is 18 U.S.C. § 600, which criminalizes promising government benefits made possible by Congress as a reward for supporting a political party,” wrote Thomas Logan, a U.S.-Asia relations specialist and strategist, in a social media post on X.

“Tying the money to GOP control fits § 600 far more closely than a standard tax-cut pledge. Vote-buying statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 597 and 52 U.S.C. § 10307(c) also apply. While defenders would argue this is a policy platform rather than a bribe, the explicit transaction creates real legal risk.”

Political writer Mona Burns called Trump’s promise an outright “bribe,” noting that violation of 18 U.S. Code § 597 is “punishable by fine or imprisonment of not more than one year,” and political scientist Danny Krikorian argued that the president’s pledge opened a “legitimate” legal question.

“Trump explicitly tied a massive cash benefit to Republican electoral victory. That creates a legitimate §600 question,” Krikorian wrote Thursday in a social media post on X.

But experts cited by the Times say that it's all legal.

Jessica Levinson, who teaches election law at Loyola Law School at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, said that Mr. Trump’s statement did not seem too far afield from a promise to lower taxes.

And Richard Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Los Angeles, said Mr. Trump’s promise was protected speech under the First Amendment, pointing to Brown v. Hartlage, a unanimous Supreme Court decision from 1982 that struck down the application of a Kentucky law preventing candidates from making monetary promises in return for votes. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote in the court’s opinion that “so long as the hoped-for personal benefit is to be achieved through the normal processes of government, and not through some private arrangement, it has always been, and remains, a reputable basis upon which to cast one’s ballot.”

Of course, this will never happen, even if the GOP succeeds in holding both houses of Congress. Trump loves to promise big payouts that never materialize.

Since becoming president again, Trump has promised: -$5000 stimulus checks via "DOGE dividend" -$2000 stimulus checks via "tariff dividend" -$1000+ checks via "savings" from expiring ACA subsidies -$5000 "dividend" if Rs win midterms No checks have been issued www.thebulwark.com/p/trump-magi...

[image or embed]

— Catherine Rampell (@crampell.bsky.social) September 9, 2026 at 10:33 PM

Every news outlet reports that this would require congressional approval, and that's true under the law. But we live in a post-rule-of-law America. If Trump wants to do something that requires congressional approval under the law, he just does it. The Republican-controlled Congress sits on its hands and lets him do it. But he doesn't want to do this. He just wants to make the empty promise.

This would be a massive budget-buster, as Bloomberg notes:

There are approximately 240 million adult citizens in the U.S., according to the U.S. Census Bureau, meaning that the payments could cost about $1.2 trillion.

If the president followed through on such a plan, it would likely worsen inflation by further boosting consumer spending and supporting higher prices, which are already elevated due to the war in Iran. The dividend, if not paired with revenue-raising measures, would also exacerbate a rise in longer-term borrowing costs for the U.S. government, which have been rising partially on fears that the federal debt is growing unsustainably.

I think a small but significant number of voters might be swayed by this -- and in a moment when Democrats appear to lead many key races by one- or two-point margins, that could be enough to give Republicans several wins. So I think Democrats need to take this seriously.

They should call it a bribe, whether or not it legally is -- common sense tells us that's exactly what it is. You can already see Democrats carefully avoiding the b-word.

DNC Rapid Response director Kendall Witmer called out Trump’s latest election stunt.

“Donald Trump and Republicans are once again offering empty promises to Americans,” Witmer said in a statement. “The only people reaping the benefits of Trump’s economy are himself, his family, and his ultra-rich elite donors. Meanwhile, working families get nothing except sky-high receipts at the grocery store and the pump, unaffordable healthcare premiums, and wages that aren’t keeping up with inflation.”

Call it a bribe, and also use the argument that will hit home the most with ordinary Americans, given the fact that this will cost more than a trillion dollars: This money isn't coming from Donald Trump and the Republicans. It's coming from your children. It's money the government doesn't have. Trump will have to borrow the money, and your children and grandchildren will be paying interest on the trillion-dollar debt for the rest of their lives.

That's the message: Donald Trump ruins everything he touches, and his only response to his failures is to bribe you to forget all about them, using money that isn't his. It's your children's and grandchildren's money he's bribing you with. Say it. Say it every day.