President Trump offered a pricey promise in his convention speech Wednesday. Here’s what you need to know about his latest idea of direct payments to Americans.

During his speech at the Republican National Midterm Convention, former President Trump announced a proposal for a $5,000 dividend to every adult U.S. citizen if Republicans secure majorities in both the House and Senate in the upcoming midterm elections. He referred to this as "the best part of the speech" and dubbed it the "Trump dividend," comparing it to previous bonuses for military members.

Trump suggested that revenue from tariffs could partially fund this initiative. However, analysts estimate such a measure would cost over $1 trillion, raising questions about its fiscal feasibility and impact on the national debt, which is nearing $1.8 trillion for the fiscal year-to-date. This cost is comparable to the $1.27 trillion spent on national debt interest and $1.36 trillion for defense spending in 2026.

The proposal has sparked debate regarding its legality, with some experts suggesting it could be viewed as an illegal attempt to influence votes. U.S. federal law prohibits payments to induce voting. Other experts, however, consider it akin to a campaign promise or a tax cut pledge, which would be legal, though its explicit nature is unusual. The Supreme Court previously ruled against the legality of Trump's tariff regime, which had been considered a source for a prior "tariff rebate" proposal. The funding mechanism remains vague, and it's unclear if Congress would approve such a large expenditure.

While Trump indicated the money would need to be spent within the U.S., details on how this would be monitored were not provided. Vice President JD Vance suggested the payments could be funded by tariffs and would not go to wealthy Americans. However, current tariff and excise tax revenue, even before refunds from the Supreme Court's tariff rulings, falls far short of the $1.3 trillion required for the proposed payouts. Critics, including Democrats, have labeled the promise as "empty," and some analysts view it as a short-term election strategy given Republican polling.

Economists have expressed significant reservations, with Erica York from the Tax Foundation stating she would be "extremely surprised" if Congress approved it, calling it "one of the worst ways to use $1.3 trillion" given the unsustainable trajectory of U.S. deficits.