Donald Trump, the former U.S. President, has pledged to provide $5,000 to every adult American citizen if the Republican party secures victory in the upcoming midterm elections. However, the astronomical cost of this proposal has led to divergent explanations from his close associates regarding how the necessary funds would be generated.
Trump himself took to his social media platform, Truth Social, on November 11th (local time) to assert the sincerity of his promise. “When I say something, I mean it. The $5,000 payment is something Americans rightfully deserve, and it will be implemented,” he stated, urging citizens to vote Republican.
This pledge was reiterated by Trump at Republican party rallies held in Dallas, Texas, on November 9th and 10th. Despite these repeated announcements, the specific mechanisms for funding such a massive expenditure have not been clearly outlined. Providing $5,000 to approximately 240 million adult Americans would require an estimated $1.2 trillion, a sum comparable to the annual interest payments on the current U.S. federal debt, which exceeds $30 trillion.
Proposed Funding Mechanisms Face Scrutiny
The funding ideas put forth by Trump’s allies have varied, leading to confusion and skepticism. One proposal, suggested by former White House trade advisor Peter Navarro in an interview with NBC, involves a “Trump Platinum Card.” This concept envisions wealthy individuals paying $5 million for the card, which would grant them the ability to stay in the U.S. for up to 270 days without paying U.S. taxes on income earned abroad.
Navarro suggested that if over 100,000 individuals participated, each paying $5 million, it could generate $500 billion. He noted that over 100,000 people are already on a waiting list to come to the U.S. under such tax-exempt conditions. The Platinum Card is reportedly being considered as a successor to the “Gold Card,” which grants U.S. permanent residency for a $1 million investment per person.
While the Gold Card was projected to generate $1 trillion in revenue last year, its actual issuance has been reportedly minimal. Navarro also indicated that the funds for the promised payments would not come from taxpayers, suggesting that the government’s holdings in Intel stock could be a source. He claimed the government acquired approximately 500 million Intel shares when the stock was $20, and it is now trading at $100, representing a potential paper profit of $40 billion. However, this remains an unrealized gain, as the stock has not been sold.
Donald Trump himself, in a prior interview with Fox News, pointed to customs revenue as a potential funding source. He stated, “We are making money. Even with TikTok, we received fees. I’ve collected fees for our country. Intel alone has brought in $10 billion.”
Similarly, former Deputy National Security Advisor Matthew Pottinger suggested to Fox News that customs revenue could be utilized. However, critics argue that annual customs revenue, typically under $200 billion, and considering business refunds, falls significantly short of the $1.2 trillion needed to fulfill the pledge.
Budget Reconciliation as a Potential Pathway?
Another proposal emerged from Kevin Hassett, a former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. During an interview on Bloomberg TV, Hassett suggested that budget reconciliation could be a viable method for implementing the payments. Budget reconciliation is a legislative process that allows certain fiscal measures to pass the Senate with a simple majority, bypassing the need for a filibuster.
This suggestion appears to diverge from Trump’s previous statements, which implied that congressional approval might not be necessary. Hassett emphasized that such a plan would require negotiation with Congress, stating, “That is something that would have to be worked out with Congress. This is a serious proposal. Don’t underestimate President Trump.”
Criticism from The Wall Street Journal
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) criticized the proposal as a “blatantly naked political act” in an editorial published on November 10th. The newspaper characterized the pledge as a “classic Trumpian example” of the “cold-blooded nature of modern politics,” suggesting it reflects a transactional approach: “Elect my party, and you get paid.” The WSJ deemed the estimated $1.2 trillion cost as an “unfathomable sum.”
However, the WSJ also acknowledged the possibility that political pressures might compel the Trump administration to scale back the promise if Republicans maintain a majority in Congress. Regarding Trump’s suggestion of using customs revenue, the WSJ sarcastically remarked that repealing tariffs could provide economic relief to the nation without any cost, implying that tariffs themselves are a burden.
The lack of a clear and viable funding plan for Trump’s $5,000 per adult citizen promise remains a significant point of contention and raises questions about its feasibility.
