US President Donald Trump has come under criticism over his proposal to pay a $5,000 “Trump dividend” to American citizens if Republicans retain control of Congress in the November midterm elections, with critics questioning both the legality and affordability of the plan.

Trump announced the proposal during a Republican midterm convention in Dallas, linking the proposed payment directly to the party’s performance in the elections.

“If the Republicans win, you win with us and you get $5,000,” Trump said. “It will be called the Trump dividend,” he maintained.

The proposal has drawn scepticism from economists and some Republicans, particularly over how the federal government would finance a payment that could cost more than $1 trillion, the Guardian UK reported.

The criticism comes as the United States faces mounting fiscal pressures, with the country’s national debt exceeding $40 trillion for the first time in August.

Republican US Representative from Texas, Chip Roy, questioned the financial implications of the proposal. “Well – I would like to know how they would plan to pay for … back of envelope … well over $1 trillion,” he said.

Marc Goldwein of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated that paying $5,000 to roughly 240 million adult US citizens would cost about $1.2 trillion in a single year.

Writing on X shortly after Trump’s announcement, Goldwein said the proposal would cost more than all three rounds of COVID-19 relief payments combined, despite the absence of a recession.

He warned that financing the payment through additional borrowing could significantly increase the federal deficit and fuel inflation. “The result would be a huge spike in the deficit, and almost certainly in the inflation rate,” Goldwein said.

He said the proposal was particularly concerning given the existing cost of servicing US government debt and other fiscal pressures.

“The 10-year (Treasury bond is) approaching 5 per cent. Inflation is not under control. We spend more on interest than we spend on defence or on Medicare at this point. Social Security is six years from insolvency,” he said.

“Just about the last thing we need is to borrow another trillion dollars to send checks to everybody,” he explained.

Goldwein further warned that if the proposal proved politically effective, it could encourage future candidates to make increasingly expensive financial promises during elections.

“If this works, the lesson for every future politician is going to be: if you want to win an election, promise a trillion dollars,” he said.

Democratic leaders have meanwhile accused Trump of attempting to use public funds to influence voters.

California Governor Gavin Newsom criticised the proposal, saying Trump was seeking to “buy your vote” with taxpayer money.

The Democratic National Committee also attacked the proposal, arguing that it was similar to previous Trump promises of direct payments to Americans.

DNC Rapid Response Director Kendall Witmer said Trump and Republicans were making promises that would not necessarily translate into benefits for ordinary Americans.

“Donald Trump and Republicans are once again offering empty promises to Americans,” she said, arguing that working families were still dealing with high food and fuel prices, healthcare costs and wages that had failed to keep pace with inflation.

The proposed payment has also been questioned in relation to revenue from Trump’s tariff policies.

The Bipartisan Policy Center, which has been tracking tariff revenue since Trump began increasing tariffs in 2025, estimated that the United States had collected about $210 billion in tariff and excise tax revenue in 2026 as of September 8.

At an average rate of about $21 billion a month, it calculated that the government would need to collect tariff revenue for almost five years to finance a $5,000 payment to every adult citizen, assuming all the revenue was dedicated to the scheme.

Financial economist Peter Schiff also criticised the proposal, warning that the promise could further unsettle US Treasury markets because investors could interpret it as an indication of additional government borrowing.

He argued that describing the proposed payments as “dividends” was misleading because the US government was running large fiscal deficits rather than generating a surplus.

The proposal has also generated different reactions within the Republican Party.

Vice-President JD Vance appeared to qualify Trump’s announcement by suggesting that the benefit could be means-tested, potentially limiting payments to citizens below specified income thresholds.

However, Republican Senator Bernie Moreno of Ohio expressed support for the proposal and said he would introduce legislation to establish the payment.

“I will get a bill ready so that we can get the Trump Dividend passed immediately after the November 3rd election,” Moreno wrote on X.

Trump’s proposal would therefore require legislative action before any payment could be made, leaving questions over its funding, eligibility and implementation unresolved.

The debate comes ahead of the November midterm elections, in which control of Congress will be contested, making Trump’s proposed payment both an economic and political issue as Republicans seek to retain their congressional majority. (Arise News)