分类： politics

With just two months remaining until the 2026 US midterm elections, former and current President Donald Trump has ignited fierce national debate by announcing a sweeping proposal: if Republicans retain control of Congress in November’s vote, every adult American citizen will receive a one-time $5,000 direct payment from the federal government. The announcement drew raucous cheers from conservative supporters gathered at the Republican Party convention in Texas on Wednesday, but it has immediately faced sharp scrutiny over its unclear funding structure, questionable constitutionality, and enormous fiscal cost that would add to already soaring US national debt.

Trump offered no concrete details during his speech about how the federal government would cover the projected $1.3 trillion price tag of the plan – a figure calculated based on the nearly 270 million adults currently residing in the United States. Vice President JD Vance later attempted to fill the gap in the proposal, suggesting the payouts would be drawn from existing federal tariff revenue and that the checks would not be distributed to the wealthiest American adults. However, available federal data shows that even cumulative tariff revenue collected since the start of 2025 falls drastically short of the sum needed for the plan. According to the nonpartisan Bipartisan Policy Center, the US has collected roughly $475 billion in combined tariff and excise tax revenue since January 2025, but more than $100 billion of that was returned to taxpayers after the Supreme Court struck down a series of controversial tariffs earlier this year, leaving less than $400 billion total on hand – less than a third of the $1.3 trillion required for the proposal.

The core point of contention surrounding the plan has been its legal status. Under existing US federal law, it is a criminal offense to offer direct cash payments intended to sway a voter’s choice at the ballot box. But legal experts are divided over whether Trump’s pledge crosses that legal line. Dr. Joan Mahoney, a law lecturer at the University of Southampton, explained that the proposal is structured differently from a direct bribe because the payments would be distributed to all qualifying adults regardless of how they cast their ballots. In her view, the pledge is no different than standard campaign promises of tax cuts that are made by every major political party, which are universally recognized as legal. “Politicians don’t usually do it quite this explicitly, but that does not make it illegal,” Mahoney noted.

Other analysts argue the pledge represents a departure from standard campaign rhetoric that crosses ethical and legal boundaries. Laurel Rapp, director of the US and North America program at the international affairs think tank Chatham House, characterized Trump’s offer as a “very different, very transactional agreement” that has few parallels in modern US electoral politics. Beyond legal questions, fiscal experts warn the plan would exacerbate the US’s already unsustainable long-term deficit trajectory, which has been worsened in recent years by massive government spending on foreign conflicts including the war in Iran. Erica York, a senior economist at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation based in Washington DC, called the proposal one of the least responsible possible uses of $1.3 trillion in public funds. “We’re on a very unsustainable track, with deficits only projected to grow and grow,” York said, adding that she would be “extremely surprised” if congressional lawmakers from either party approved such a massive expenditure. Under US legislative rules, Congress holds the sole constitutional authority to authorize federal spending, and political observers widely agree Trump could not implement the plan via executive order even if he wanted to.

Additional questions remain unanswered about the fine print of the proposal: Trump said the $5,000 payments would be required to be spent within the United States, but the administration has offered no explanation of how that requirement would be enforced or monitored. The White House pushed back against criticism in a statement to the BBC, dismissing detractors as “doomers and naysayers” who have consistently underestimated the president. “With the continued support of the American people, President Trump will keep delivering real results,” said White House spokesman Davis Ingle.

Many political strategists frame the announcement as a calculated last-minute campaign push rather than a serious policy proposal, given Republicans face tightening polling ahead of the midterms. Robert Moran, a former Republican strategist and pollster, noted the extraordinary pledge comes as election day draws near: “It is an extraordinary promise, and I’m not sure where that money is going to come from – but it is campaign season.” Rapp echoed that analysis, arguing Trump is prioritizing short-term electoral gains to help Republicans keep control of Congress during his final two years in office, turning to direct cash appeals because polling has been underperforming for the party. This is not the first time Trump has floated such a large direct payout proposal: during a prior term, he pledged $2,000 checks funded by tariff revenue, a promise that was never implemented. The proposal also echoes past controversies over vote buying: former President Joe Biden faced similar accusations in 2021 when he promised $2,000 Covid stimulus checks to voters if Democrats won two critical US Senate runoffs in Georgia, and in 2024, Trump supporter Elon Musk drew legal scrutiny for offering cash incentives to voters in key swing states who signed a political petition. Democrats have already dismissed Trump’s 2026 pledge as nothing more than an “empty promise” designed to win votes without any intention of following through.

It has been exactly one year since prominent conservative activist Charlie Kirk was fatally shot on the campus of Utah Valley University (UVU) while preparing for one of his signature live debates, and the aftershocks of his assassination continue to reshape both his organization, Turning Point USA (TPUSA), and American campus political culture.

Jeb Jacobi, a third-year UVU student and volunteer at that fateful September 10 event, still carries vivid memories of the attack. The echo of the sniper’s gunshot that felled Kirk remains with him, and for witnesses like Jacobi, who saw the conservative leader as a hero, his killing on campus left an indelible mark. “It feels like there’s a forever stain on us here,” Jacobi told the BBC in an interview marking the anniversary. “This is where Charlie Kirk was killed.”

In the immediate aftermath of the assassination, many supporters expected TPUSA — the youth conservative organization Kirk founded — would grow exponentially, fueled by the rising tide of sympathy and martyr status for its fallen leader. Just five days after Kirk’s death, a TPUSA spokesperson announced on X that the group had received more than 32,000 inquiries from students seeking to launch new campus chapters in just 48 hours, confirming a brief surge of grassroots support. But one year on, the organization has struggled to fill the void left by Kirk’s charismatic leadership.

“It’s not the same organisation,” Jacobi said of current TPUSA. “It just doesn’t have the same power, the same impact.” Current members confirm that internal friction between moderate and far-right factions has slowed the group’s momentum, with one Arkansas chapter completely rebranding to cut ties with the national organization over disagreement with its current direction. The BBC reached out to TPUSA for comment on this report but did not receive a response. Kirk’s widow Erika Kirk has since taken over as CEO of the organization, and the group has launched a new campus outreach initiative called Pick Up the Mic, which sends debaters to high schools and colleges across the U.S. to continue Kirk’s tradition of public political debate.

Not all members share the view that TPUSA has faltered. Macy Gunnell, who finally secured approval to launch a new TPUSA chapter at Indiana’s St Mary’s College after Kirk’s death — a goal she had pursued for years without success — says predictions of the group’s demise are wrong. “While there are flying accusations out there that Turning Point is dead, Turning Point’s become something that it never was, Turning Point became everything Charlie hated – that could not be further from the truth,” said Gunnell, now a 22-year-old media professional in Washington D.C. After meeting Erika Kirk and TPUSA leadership at the organization’s headquarters this summer, Gunnell remains optimistic: “I’m confident that Turning Point’s not going anywhere, and this is quite literally just the beginning.”

Beyond the internal struggles of TPUSA, Kirk’s assassination has deepened political polarization on and off the UVU campus, which is located in a deeply conservative Utah county where registered Republicans outnumber Democrats by more than seven to one. Jacobi says the campus climate is more divided than ever, with rising hostility across ideological lines. “The culture has gotten more hostile,” he said. “I love for everyone to have their own viewpoints and [be] sharing them. The debate is good for society. It’s what Charlie did.”

Critics of Kirk have long argued that his high-profile campus debates were less about constructive discussion and more about stoking outrage to generate social media attention, while advancing misogynistic, racist and homophobic rhetoric. Since his death, some UVU students have protested a planned campus memorial to Kirk and attempted to block an anniversary commemoration event scheduled for Thursday. Conflicts between the campus TPUSA chapter and socialist student groups are now regular occurrences.

Anthony Shinkle, another 20-year-old UVU student, warns that the graphic, public killing of a beloved political leader has pushed vulnerable young conservatives in two dangerous directions: some now fear sharing their ideological views openly, while others have drifted toward more extreme, fringe political positions. “These are impressionable people, impressionable youth,” Shinkle said. “They watched their political hero be murdered very, very graphically. I feel like the assassin got exactly what he wanted.” Like Jacobi, Shinkle says no current conservative figure can step into Kirk’s unique role.

Political scientists note that the dip in momentum TPUSA is experiencing is far from unusual for a movement built around a single charismatic founding figure. “You have a movement that was started and led by this kind of charismatic figure, and the charismatic figure goes away,” said Mark Brewer, chair of the political science department at the University of Maine. “A little bit of loss of momentum isn’t exactly surprising.”

Brewer added that while a leadership vacuum remains, Kirk’s legacy and status as a conservative martyr remain powerful. “Kirk’s personal status as a martyr remains very strong. You can see plenty of folks on the right who are trying to claim affiliation with Kirk. In some ways, that maybe has only increased,” he said. “Kirk himself, in his own influence of his legacy, I don’t think that’s going anywhere.”

For many students who witnessed the attack, the killing has also prompted deep personal change. Shinkle, who moved to Utah from Alabama because his family believed it would be safer than his home state, says he carries a persistent, unshakable guilt: “I kind of feel a weird sense of guilt. I feel like it’s a common sentiment, that everyone wishes they could have done something.” Jacobi, for his part, has pulled back from political engagement and deepened his Christian faith, a path that mirrored Kirk’s own beliefs. “When Charlie died, I took a look at myself,” he said. “There are so many people who make politics their entire identity. It’s so unhealthy for you. It really made me realise I needed and wanted a relationship with Christ like Charlie had. Ever since I got more involved, I’ve felt much happier and more peaceful of a person.”

As the first anniversary of Kirk’s death approaches, the trial of the accused shooter, Tyler Robinson, is set to move forward after a Utah judge cleared legal hurdles earlier this month. Robinson has pleaded not guilty to aggravated murder — a capital offense in Utah — and six additional charges. For TPUSA, Brewer says the organization’s long-term trajectory remains unclear, and its future will be shaped in the coming year and a half. “The final part of the story hasn’t been written yet,” he said. “So I think a lot will be determined over the next six, 12, 18 months.”

As the United States gears up for critical November midterm elections, a bold campaign promise from former President Donald Trump has ignited fierce debate over both its feasibility and legal standing. Trump has publicly stated that every American household would receive a $5,000 payout – equivalent to roughly £3,700 in British currency – should Republican candidates secure majority control of Congress in the upcoming election cycle.

The pledge, announced in public remarks that quickly spread across national media platforms, has prompted election watchdogs and legal analysts to launch immediate examinations of whether the promise complies with existing federal campaign finance laws and executive branch regulations. Legal experts have raised key questions about the authority of a president or congressional majority to unilaterally implement such a broad, universal cash disbursement, noting that all federal spending must go through formal congressional appropriation processes that place checks on executive action.

Political opponents have already labeled the pledge as an irresponsible appeal to voters that violates ethical standards for campaign rhetoric, arguing that promising direct cash payments in exchange for electoral support crosses legal boundaries. Meanwhile, allies of Trump have pushed back, framing the promise as a bold policy vision that reflects the former president’s commitment to delivering economic relief to working American families, asserting that it falls well within the bounds of legitimate campaign discourse.

As voters head to the polls in just a few months, the scrutiny over this pledge is expected to intensify, with legal challenges and public debates set to shape how the promise is perceived by electorate across the country.

As the 2026 U.S. midterm elections enter their final stretch, former President Donald Trump has sent shockwaves through the nation’s political landscape with a bold, highly contested campaign promise: if the Republican Party secures control of both chambers of Congress in the November vote, every adult American citizen will receive a one-time $5,000 payout, dubbed the “Trump Dividend.”

The proposal was first announced during the first ever in-term Republican National Convention held in Dallas, Texas, where a cheering crowd of party loyalists greeted the announcement with raucous applause. The plan would require an estimated $1.3 trillion in federal government spending, based on the roughly 270 million adults currently living in the United States. In his remarks, Trump mandated that all funds must be spent domestically, barring spending in foreign nations including Canada, China, and Germany, but offered no further framework for how the requirement would be enforced, nor did he outline how the massive payout would be funded or what legislative steps he would take to move the plan forward.

This is not the first time Trump has floated direct cash payouts to voters. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he previously proposed $2,000 stimulus checks funded by incoming tariff revenues, echoing a similar pledge made by Democratic Senate candidates in Georgia during the 2020 runoff elections, where the party promised identical $2,000 relief payments in exchange for winning Senate control.

Even before the details of the plan could be fleshed out, political opponents and policy analysts have raised a flurry of questions about the proposal’s feasibility, legality, and political ethics. The Democratic Party has already rejected the pledge as an empty political stunt designed to buy votes with no basis in practical policy. Legal experts remain divided on whether the promise violates federal election rules: federal statutes prohibit direct payments intended to influence voter behavior, but many analysts argue the pledge could be framed as a tax cut proposal, which falls within legal bounds, and is protected as political speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The announcement comes as the Trump administration faces mounting pressure over ongoing economic instability tied to a months-long conflict with Iran that began in February. After the U.S. and Israel launched military operations against Iran, Tehran retaliated by blocking all commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global chokepoint through which roughly 20% of the world’s daily oil and liquefied natural gas supplies transit. The blockage has triggered volatile global oil price swings and driven sustained domestic inflation across the U.S., eroding household purchasing power and creating political friction for Trump within his own party.

Earlier this week, Trump acknowledged the economic pain ahead for Americans, telling supporters that oil prices would not stabilize and the conflict with Iran would not conclude until after the November midterm elections. He has argued that short-term economic hardship is a necessary tradeoff to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, a framing he repeated during the Dallas convention. Even with that justification, the $5,000 dividend proposal is widely seen as an effort to shore up voter support amid anger over rising costs, as Republicans fight to hold or expand their congressional majorities ahead of the 2028 presidential election cycle.

In Dallas this week, the Republican Party hosted its first ever pre-midterm convention, an event that carried all the pageantry of a traditional presidential nominating gathering – from cheering supporters waving custom signs and wearing vibrant event gear, to a packed schedule of candidate speeches and rows of vendors selling branded campaign merchandise. Unlike a standard party convention, however, no official organizational business was conducted. Instead, the two-day gathering served purely as a high-energy turnout rally, designed to energize the Republican base and help the party hang onto its narrow majorities in the U.S. House and Senate ahead of November’s midterm elections.

At the center of the event was former President Donald Trump, whose unchallenged hold over the modern Republican Party remained on full display throughout opening night. He delivered a marathon keynote address that covered his go-to policy and political talking points from this election cycle, mixed with a handful of unanticipated announcements that quickly drew national attention.

The massive convention arena was packed with die-hard Trump supporters, almost all decked out in the iconic red “Make America Great Again” gear from his past presidential campaigns. More than a decade after he launched his first successful White House run, Trump retains unwavering loyalty from his political base, and has reshaped the entire Republican Party in his image over the past 10 years. What remains of the old-guard moderate Republican establishment was nowhere to be found at the Dallas event: Senator Susan Collins of Maine and multiple other Republican candidates running in competitive swing districts opted to skip the gathering entirely.

This glaring absence of moderate Republican figures underscores just how dramatically the party has shifted under Trump’s leadership, and it has amplified ongoing questions about the strategic value of this unprecedented midterm convention format. The event’s core audience, both inside the arena and tuning in via television broadcasts, was overwhelmingly made up of already committed Trump loyalists, rather than the undecided moderates and swing voters that Republicans need to turn out in large numbers to hold their congressional majorities next month.

Trump’s complete dominance of the party also raises urgent questions about its long-term future: most notably, who will step forward as the party’s next standard-bearer when Trump eventually steps back, and how will the party perform in November, when Trump’s name will not appear anywhere on the ballot?

Trump offered a straightforward answer to the immediate electoral challenge in his Wednesday night address. After acknowledging that the sitting president’s party almost always loses ground in midterm elections, he urged the crowd: “I’m asking you to pretend that I’m on the ballot.”

The comment serves as a quiet admission that Trump remains the Republican Party’s most powerful tool to drive voter turnout, but it also highlights a core challenge for the party both in November and ahead of the 2028 presidential election: eventually, Trump will not be on the ballot, and even while he can continue campaigning for Republican candidates, there is no clear successor who can energize the base with the same level of enthusiasm Trump generates. In on-the-ground interviews with BBC reporters, many convention attendees already turned their attention to the 2028 presidential race, debating potential candidates to take over from Trump. The names most frequently cited as top contenders were Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Still, Trump made clear in Dallas that he remains firmly in control of the party and has no plans to cede the national political spotlight any time soon.

Earlier in the day, as he departed for the convention, Trump acknowledged that American voters may have to wait longer than the midterms to see relief from sky-high gas prices, telling reporters “I think it’s going to take a little bit longer than the midterms.” He doubled down on that message in his keynote, arguing that the short-term economic pain caused by the ongoing war in Iran is a necessary trade-off to stop Tehran from developing a nuclear weapons program. But that messaging is expected to be a hard sell for voters already struggling with the impact of rising energy and consumer costs.

For months, public opinion polls have consistently ranked the cost of living as the top issue for American voters, and Trump’s approval rating has dropped amid the prolonged war in Iran. A new poll conducted by the Financial Times and Focaldata, released on the Sunday before the convention, put Trump’s approval at a new low, with just 33% of registered voters saying they approve of his job performance. Many Republican candidates running in competitive races have pushed for a more direct plan to address rising living costs and end the war in Iran, a point of quiet friction within the party.

True to his pattern of rolling out unconventional policy ideas at large rallies, Trump made a headline-grabbing announcement Wednesday night: he pledged that every adult U.S. citizen would receive a $5,000 payout if Republicans win control of both chambers of Congress in November. The only condition Trump set was that the money had to be spent within the United States. He offered no further details about how the plan would be implemented, where the $5,000 per person would come from, or how the federal government would enforce the requirement that all funds be spent domestically.

Democratic leaders quickly dismissed the pledge as an “empty promise”, and legal and policy experts questioned whether such an executive payout would even be legal. With roughly 270 million adult citizens in the United States, the total cost of the proposed payout would reach an estimated $1.3 trillion. For Trump and the crowd in Dallas, however, the practical feasibility of the plan appeared secondary to its political impact: the announcement drew loud, raucous applause from the convention audience, and Trump clearly relished the moment of excitement.