President Donald Trump may have opened himself up to a “legitimate” legal issue Wednesday night after promising Americans $5,000 dividend checks, a number of experts warned.
Speaking at the RNC midterm convention in Dallas, Texas, Trump pledged to award Americans with $5,000 if Republicans end up performing well in the midterms and maintain their congressional majority. And, while he’s promised Americans cash in the past — none of which ever materialized — Trump’s explicit promise to award Americans for electing Republicans, some critics said, may run afoul of federal law.
“The primary legal threat is 18 U.S.C. § 600, which criminalizes promising government benefits made possible by Congress as a reward for supporting a political party,” wrote Thomas Logan, a U.S.-Asia relations specialist and strategist, in a social media post on X.
“Tying the money to GOP control fits § 600 far more closely than a standard tax-cut pledge. Vote-buying statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 597 and 52 U.S.C. § 10307(c) also apply. While defenders would argue this is a policy platform rather than a bribe, the explicit transaction creates real legal risk.”
Political writer Mona Burns called Trump’s promise an outright “bribe,” noting that violation of 18 U.S. Code § 597 is “punishable by fine or imprisonment of not more than one year,” and political scientist Danny Krikorian argued that the president’s pledge opened a “legitimate” legal question.
“Trump explicitly tied a massive cash benefit to Republican electoral victory. That creates a legitimate §600 question,” Krikorian wrote Thursday in a social media post on X.
“Trump’s wording pushes unusually close to the conceptual boundary of vote buying. Current Supreme Court precedent makes a criminal vote-buying case difficult but not impossible. The legal line becomes much clearer if payment is conditioned on voting Republican, voting at all, proving how someone voted, or otherwise providing partisan support.”
Federal law contains several criminal prohibitions addressing attempts to influence voters through financial inducements, most notably 18 U.S.C. § 597, which targets expenditures designed to affect voting behavior (18 U.S. Code § 597 - Expenditures to influence voting).… https://t.co/VPAyOygvyk
— Drew M. Capuder (@DrewCapuder) September 10, 2026