The article reports on Donald Trump's promise at the Republican National Committee midterm convention to provide $5,000 stimulus checks to every adult US citizen if Republicans win both houses of Congress in the midterms. According to estimates, this proposal would cost around $1.225 trillion, which is a significant number compared to the government's budget for discretionary spending. The article suggests that Trump has made similar promises before but never followed through, and questions the validity of this latest promise as well. It also notes that the Republican party could have implemented such a policy if they truly wanted to, implying that the promise may be an attempt to bribe voters rather than a genuine proposal.
Written by the local model on 2026-09-11,
using this article's own text rather than the other coverage of the
same event (that is the story summary below).
DEAR LORD, DO WE REALLY have to take this seriously?
asserted
WE → have → this
On Wednesday at the RNC midterm “convention,” Donald Trump promised yet another round of stimulus checks.
asserted
Trump → promise → checks
This time, the pledged cash is a $5,000 “dividend,” paid out to every adult U.S. citizen, conditional on Republicans winning both houses of Congress in the midterms.
asserted
Republicans → pledge → midterms
I’m sorta loath to even analyze this “proposal” on the merits, since it’s so obviously vaporware.
asserted
it → ’m → merits
And usually one of my journalistic rules is to not spend more time analyzing an idiotic Trump proposal than Trump himself has spent coming up with it.
asserted
Trump → spend → it
But given that other news outlets are treating this as a serious policy idea, I guess I’m obligated to debunk it.1
The short version is this: Trump has made and broken similar promises many times before; this midterm “dividend” would be extremely expensive; it would be extraordinarily inflationary; the Republican trifecta could already have done this if they truly wanted to; and the mere suggestion of a Trump check will embolden all sorts of scam artists.
uncertain
suggestion → give → artists
Other than that, it’s perfect.
asserted
it → ’ → that
Let’s take those one by one.
asserted
’s → take → one
If you have been reading this newsletter, you know that Trump recycles his lil’ stimmy promise every few months.
asserted
Trump → read → promise
Here is a partial list of times he’s teased checks from the government since retaking office:
asserted
he → tease → office
Checks of indeterminate value that would redirect money that would have been spent on Affordable Care Act subsidies (November 2025)
$500 Obamacare “rebate” checks (September 2026)
$5,000 “dividend” if Republicans win the midterms (yesterday)
Check out the supercut:
asserted
Republicans → redirect → supercut
The purported source of the funding for this smorgasbord of goodies changes, as do the specific amounts and sometimes the population of beneficiaries or what they can spend the money on.2 Sometimes the president even claims he’ll have money left over to pay down the debt.
uncertain
he → change → debt
But you know what doesn’t change?
asserted
what → know → ?
The fact that he doesn’t mean a word of any of this.
asserted
he → mean → this
The math doesn’t add up, and the money never comes.
asserted
money → add → ?
They forget they’ve heard this before, so every time at least some people fall for it
asserted
people → forget → it
It doesn’t add up.
asserted
It → add → ?
If you take this latest voter bribery3 attempt at face value, it would cost somewhere around $1.225 trillion.
asserted
it → take → trillion
And that doesn’t count whatever administrative costs there are to delivering that money to the right place, making sure as little of it as possible goes to fraud, etc.)
asserted
little → count → etc
To put its ginormousness in context: The government’s budget for discretionary spending last fiscal year (i.e., excluding things like Medicare or Social Security) was about $1.9 trillion.
asserted
budget → put → Medicare
So the dividend would exceed one-seventh the size of the entire federal government’s current budget.
asserted
dividend → exceed → budget
A trillion here, a trillion there—pretty soon you’re talking about real money.
asserted
you → talk → money
And we’re pretty deeply in the hole already.
asserted
we → ’re → hole
As Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders noted literally hours after Trump promised his midterm dividends: “All those ‘free’ things Democrats want to give you?
asserted
Democrats → note → you
Someone eventually has to pay for it.”
asserted
Someone → have → it
Of course, she wasn’t talking about her former boss.
asserted
she → talk → boss
She was talking about Democrats.
asserted
She → talk → Democrats
Trump did not specify how any of this would be paid for.
asserted
any → specify → this
Vice President JD Vance tried to fill in the blanks, suggesting on Fox News last night that it would be funded by our bountiful tariffs.
asserted
it → try → tariffs
I’ve lost track at this juncture as to how many things tariff revenues are supposed to pay for.4
But, needless to say, it’s a lie that the tariffs could cover Trump’s past fantasy proposals, and it’s a lie that they can cover the current one.
uncertain
they → lose → one
Tariff revenue this fiscal year is expected to total about $168 billion.5 Which is, you’ll notice, an order of magnitude smaller than this new stimmy check idea would cost.
asserted
idea → expect → magnitude
Receipts With Catherine Rampell—a new companion podcast to this newsletter—is launching September 18 wherever you get your podcasts and on YouTube.
asserted
you → launch → YouTube
Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube | More
3. It would supercharge inflation
asserted
It → supercharge → inflation
Another reason why dumping another trillion of stimmies into the economy might not be the best idea is that it will drive inflation up even faster.
uncertain
it → dump → inflation
Inflation is essentially a phenomenon of too much cash chasing too few goods, which leads customers to bid up prices.
asserted
which → chase → prices
If you give consumers even more cash, but we have not actually expanded the productive capacity of the economy, prices will rise even higher.
asserted
prices → give → economy
In fact, this is precisely the argument that Republicans made about why former President Joe Biden’s near-universal COVID relief stimulus checks in early 2021 were inflationary.
asserted
checks → make → 2021
If only they recognized the same economic reasoning now, when we also already have expansionary fiscal policy (Trump’s tax cuts passed last year), relatively accommodative monetary policy (there’s a reason why markets believe the Fed needs to hike interest rates), and more than six years of elevated inflation.
asserted
Fed → recognize → inflation
There’s a reason why these kinds of helicopter drops of cash are usually called “stimulus” checks and are usually deployed when the economy is weak: They’re designed to stimulate the economy.
asserted
They → ’ → economy
An economy that’s already running hot, as evidenced by low unemployment and high price growth, does not need stimulating.
4.
asserted
that → run → 4
…and 41 more, not listed.
