In a move smacking of political desperation, President Donald Trump announced a $5,000 cash payment to every American adult during a primetime speech Wednesday night at the Republican midterm convention. The catch is that Republicans must retain control of both houses of Congress. "Here is my promise," said Trump. "If the Republicans win the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, both of them ... I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for $5,000."

The promise was no accident, as Trump made clear by repeating it twice more in his speech. “If the Republicans win, you win with us, and you get $5,000. It will be called the Trump dividend. … Now all we have to do is win,” he reiterated. And, later, “as I said, we’re going to give you that Trump dividend of $5,000 if we win, and we’re going to win.”

President Trump also stipulated that the money “must be spent in the United States of America.” How he could possibly enforce such an earmark is anybody’s guess, but it wouldn’t matter because money is fungible; if Americans wanted to spend those dollars overseas, they could use the government cash on domestic expenses to free up other dollars.

Perhaps this condition was designed to make the cash payment sound like legislation, to provide some sort of rationale for connecting the money to a Republican midterm victory. But such reasoning is tenuous and speculative, besides contradicting the wording of Trump’s original promise, “I will issue….”

Indeed, President Trump’s promise sounded so much like a bribe that he felt compelled to immediately describe it as something else: Trump was offering a dividend, not a bribe, he insisted. “Very much like a successful company will do a cash distribution to its shareholders,” he explained.

If this was Trump’s intention, he did himself no favors by repeatedly tying the payments to the midterm election results, which should have no influence on the existence of a dividend. A concluding plea made the payments sound more nakedly political than any other: “So please, I ask you this, as maybe more important even than the Trump dividend: Please pretend that I’m running and get out and vote on November 3rd or sooner.” Is it really a dividend, or just an incentive to vote Republican in November?

The president’s gambit drew immediate criticism across the political spectrum, including deep disappointment from conservatives. “Government does not produce wealth; it spends what it taxes or borrows from the American people,” responded FRC President Tony Perkins. “If Washington collects more than it needs, return it through permanent tax relief. But a government deeply in debt should stop overspending and reduce that debt, not distribute borrowed money and call it a ‘dividend.’”

The fundamental concern with Trump’s plan is the apparent bribery involved in paying for votes. Bribery is fundamentally contrary to God’s character (Deuteronomy 10:17; 2 Chronicles 19:7). Bribery is one reason for God’s judgment on the wicked (Psalm 26:9-10; Isaiah 1:23; Amos 5:12), and avoiding bribes is one mark of those who dwell with God (Psalm 15:1-5; Isaiah 33:14-15; Proverbs 15:27).

Thus, Scripture commends government officials who “hate a bribe” (Exodus 18:21). A bribe “corrupts the heart” (Ecclesiastes 7:7), “blinds the clear-sighted” (Exodus 23:8), and “subverts the cause of the righteous” (Deuteronomy 16:19). Public bribery makes for an immoral nation and bad government.

Indeed, problems with President Trump’s payment scheme are not hard to find. “Sending $5,000 checks to every adult would cost around $1.3 trillion,” calculated National Review editor Charlie Cooke, “more than the entire federal discretionary budget for 2026, and equivalent to about ten years of revenues from the tariffs,” which administration officials have claimed will pay for the checks. Such a massive spending package would be nearly impossible to muscle through Congress, and Congress could pinch pennies elsewhere if the president tried to evade it. In other words, it’s not fiscally feasible.

Even if it were, such major deficit spending would plunge America back into the sea of inflation out of which the economy has not finished wading.

Unfortunately, Americans need not look back very far for a precedent. During the COVID era (2020-2021), Congress authorized at least three direct payments to Americans, totaling up to $3,200 per adult, for a total of $931 billion. These unnecessary payments primed the economy for the high inflation that followed in 2021-2022, as too many dollars chased too few goods. President Trump’s proposal would make that debacle look like amateur hour.

Never has the proverb been truer: “Wealth gained hastily will dwindle, but whoever gathers little by little will increase it” (Proverbs 13:11).

The obvious ethical and economic issues with President Trump’s vote-buying proposal suggest a growing desperation about the outcome of the midterm elections. Historically, the party in the White House loses seats in the midterms, and an unpopular war, a middling economy, and low approval ratings for the president make it unlikely that Republicans will beat the odds in 2026, though House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) remains publicly and privately optimistic.

In his Wednesday night address, President Trump tried to sound upbeat about the economy, claiming the “dividend” was deserved “because we’ve done so well, and because our country is making so much money that only I can make this promise to you.” The very fact that Trump made the unsavory offer — indeed, the very fact that Republicans decided to hold an unprecedented midterm convention this year — suggest the truth is far gloomier.

President Trump has pulled out all the stops to try and cheer up America’s economic melancholy. Axios reported the Trump administration also plans to send $500 rebate checks to as many as one million Obamacare participants in 30 states, on the theory that insurance overcharged them.

Unfortunately, one-time payments, even in multiple states, are no substitute for sound economic fundamentals. “Returning a genuine surplus is one thing,” Perkins concluded. “Borrowing from our children and grandchildren to send checks to today’s voters is something else entirely.”