"🚨 FINANCIAL SHOCKER! — TRUMP KEEPS CHANGING THE NUMBER FOR $5,000 CHECKS: HERE'S WHO QUALIFIES!"
Donald Trump has shifted the terms of his promise to send Americans $5,000 checks, potentially changing who would qualify and leaving around 73 million people out of the picture.
Trump’s ‘Trump Dividend’ promises
proposed payment, dubbed the “Trump Dividend,” remains far from certain.
While the president has promoted the idea as a benefit of his policies, questions remain over who would receive the money, how much the plan would cost, and whether it will ever happen.
Trump has floated several plans to send money directly to Americans, but previous proposals have yet to materialize as promised
At one point, he suggested that tariff revenue could fund $2,000 payments to Americans. Since then, the proposal has faced questions about eligibility, whether the government could afford it, and whether sending out checks would be a sensible use of the money.
Raised the prospect of $5,000 payments
More recently, Trump raised the prospect of $5,000 payments, once again linking the idea to the revenue generated by tariffs.
However, the latest comments have created fresh uncertainty about exactly who would qualify.
According to the statements cited in reports, Trump has tied the proposal to the outcome of the midterm elections, suggesting that Republicans would need to win for Americans to receive the money.
On September 9, he said: ”If the Republicans win, you win with us and you get $5,000”.
He also wrote on: “The highly popular $5,000 Trump Dividend will be distributed to every U.S. Citizen if, and when, the Republicans win the Midterm Elections!”
But during an appearance in Alabama that same day, Trump reportedly described the intended recipients as ‘all adult citizens’. That distinction could make a substantial difference to the number of people eligible for the proposed payment.
The numbers behind Trump’s dividend plan
The United States has approximately 343 million citizens. If every citizen received $5,000, the total cost would come to roughly $1.7 trillion.
Restricting the payments to adult citizens would reduce the number of recipients by around 73 million, bringing the estimated total to approximately 270 million people.
Even under that narrower definition, the cost would still be about $1.35 trillion.
The difference between the two groups is significant: children would be excluded if eligibility were limited to adults. However, the proposal’s final eligibility rules and funding mechanism have not been established.
Alex Wong/Getty Images
The figures also highlight the scale of the challenge facing any administration seeking to distribute such large payments.
Trump has acknowledged that the proposed payments would come with a hefty price tag, but argues that the country can afford them.
“The Trump Dividend is approximately $1 trillion, but we have a record-setting $21 trillion that’s being invested in our country in just the last 15 months,” he
Asked to clarify the official eligibility criteria
Despite the attention surrounding the proposal, polling cited by The Economist and YouGov suggests that many Americans doubt the payments will happen.
According to the reported results, 61% of respondents said Trump would not follow through on the promise, while 21% believed he would.
Opinion on the proposal itself was also divided. Some 45% opposed the plan, compared with 43% who supported it.
The skepticism comes amid memories of earlier proposals, including the previously discussed $2,000 payments funded by tariff revenue and the idea of a so-called “DOGE Dividend” linked to government cost-cutting.
Neither proposal has resulted in the broad payments originally discussed.
When asked about the administration’s position, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle defended the president’s record, saying that he ‘has consistently proven his doubters wrong’ and adding that ‘with the continued support of the American people, President Trump will keep delivering real results.’
"🚨 BRANSON'S SCATHING ATTACK! — HE BLASTS TRUMP OVER PUTIN TIES AND URGES EUROPE TO STAND FIRM!"
British billionaire Sir Richard Branson has launched a fierce public attack on Donald Trump, accusing the U.S. administration of appeasing dictators and putting personal preferences ahead of American and allied interests.
The Virgin Group founder made his criticism in a LinkedIn post published this week, questioning why Trump appeared so willing to accommodate Russian President Vladimir Putin while Ukraine continues to face Russia’s invasion.
Branson described the administration as an “appeaser to autocrats and dictators,” arguing that its approach could weaken confidence among America’s traditional allies and undermine the interests of democratic nations.
He also raised a pointed question about the president’s relationship with Putin, asking why Trump seemed to flatter the Russian leader despite the continuing war and widespread international concern over Moscow’s actions.
The remarks come amid renewed controversy over a reported agreement involving Russian diesel supplies and a temporary easing of U.S. sanctions on Russian energy exports.
Trump has defended the arrangement as beneficial to fuel markets, while critics argue that allowing Russian energy revenues to flow could indirectly help Moscow sustain its war effort.
Branson called the deal deeply hypocritical, pointing to the contrast between Washington’s previous willingness to penalize countries purchasing Russian energy and its own decision to ease restrictions.
His criticism extended beyond energy policy. He also condemned Trump’s public attacks on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, describing the administration’s treatment of Ukraine as a betrayal during a period of war and suffering.
The billionaire’s intervention follows mounting concern in Kyiv and across Europe about the durability of American support for Ukraine, particularly as diplomatic efforts have struggled to produce a lasting settlement.
Branson also expressed alarm about reports involving restrictions on Starshield services used by Ukraine, a technology issue that has raised questions about the country’s access to crucial battlefield communications.
Some of Branson’s claims about the consequences of satellite-service restrictions have not been independently confirmed, and the details of decisions involving military communications remain disputed.
He urged European leaders to respond more decisively, arguing that the continent cannot simply wait for Washington to determine the future of Ukraine’s security and its broader relationship with Russia.
His proposed response reportedly included considering the use of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine and supplying more advanced weapons, measures that would intensify the confrontation with Moscow.
The comments place Branson among a relatively small group of prominent business leaders willing to criticize Trump directly over foreign policy, despite the political and commercial sensitivities surrounding such interventions.
Branson has previously spoken out in support of Ukraine and criticized approaches that he believes would pressure Kyiv into accepting an unfavorable peace agreement with Russia.
The latest dispute also comes at a politically sensitive moment in the United States, with congressional midterm elections approaching and foreign policy increasingly intertwined with domestic debates over leadership and national priorities.
Supporters of Trump’s approach may argue that direct engagement with Moscow and energy-market flexibility can serve American interests, even when such policies provoke disagreement among allies.
Critics counter that concessions to Russia risk weakening deterrence and sending an unsettling message to countries relying on the United States for diplomatic, economic and military support.
The disagreement reflects a broader debate over whether negotiations and economic pragmatism can help end the war—or whether they could give Moscow additional leverage without securing meaningful concessions.
For Ukraine, the stakes remain immediate: continued military pressure, uncertainty over international support and the search for a settlement that preserves its sovereignty remain central concerns.
Branson’s intervention adds another prominent voice to the dispute, challenging the White House’s handling of Russia and demanding a stronger response from Europe as the conflict continues.
