U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) accused President Donald Trump of attempting to illegally buy votes ahead of the November midterms, calling the president’s newly unveiled $5,000 “Trump dividend” proposal a corrupt campaign stunt rather than a legitimate economic policy. Padilla’s remarks, posted to X on Thursday, September 10, 2026, mark the latest escalation in a monthslong campaign by the California Democrat accusing the Trump administration of using the machinery of government for personal and political gain.
Padilla’s post came in direct response to Trump’s pledge, announced the night before at the Republican Party’s first-ever midterm convention in Dallas, to send a $5,000 payment to every adult U.S. citizen if Republicans retain control of the House and Senate in the November 3 elections.
The Post
Padilla’s statement, published to his official X account on Thursday at 10:29 a.m., read in full:
“Our tax dollars aren’t a campaign slush fund and bribing Americans for their vote is illegal. This is just a stunt from the most corrupt president in history.”
Trump’s Pledge Sparks Immediate Backlash
Trump unveiled the proposal during a nearly two-hour primetime address, framing the payout as a return on the country’s economic performance under his leadership. “Because we’ve done so well, and because our country is making so much money, only I can make this promise to you, and here is my promise: if the Republicans win the House of Representatives and the United States Senate… I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for $5,000,” Trump told the crowd. He attached one condition, saying the money “must be spent in the United States of America,” but offered no details on funding, eligibility or a legislative path.
The White House followed with a formal release Thursday defending the plan, arguing that Trump “does what the so-called ‘experts’ say cannot be done” and crediting his administration with “trillions in new private investment” and a “crackdown on government waste.” The release cast the payment as something “possible only because of President Trump,” comparing it to a company returning profits to shareholders, and warned that a Democratic-controlled Congress “will deliver the opposite — higher taxes, open borders, and the same failed communist agenda.”
A Trillion-Dollar Proposal With No Funding Plan
With roughly 240 million U.S. adults, according to Census Bureau figures, the payout would cost approximately $1.2 trillion, according to Reuters. Vice President JD Vance suggested after Trump’s speech that the government could draw on tariff revenue to cover the cost, but the Congressional Budget Office has recorded only $167 billion in tariff receipts so far this fiscal year — a fraction of what the plan would require. Reuters reported that the payments would instead widen a federal budget gap that is already drawing scrutiny from watchdogs, with the CBO projecting the government will spend $2.1 trillion more than it collects in the current fiscal year.
Even some Republicans have expressed skepticism about how the plan would be paid for. Rep. Chip Roy of Texas told Politico, “I would like to know how they would plan to pay for … back of envelope … well over $1 trillion.”
The Legal Question at the Center of Padilla’s Accusation
Padilla’s post directly raises the legal issue that has followed the proposal since its announcement. Federal law makes it a crime to offer or make a payment intended to induce someone to vote, withhold a vote, or vote for or against a candidate, with penalties of up to a year in prison and up to two years for willful violations. Reuters noted that while candidates have long promised targeted benefits in exchange for votes — including Trump’s 2024-era pledges on tax breaks for seniors and tipped workers, and Democrats’ promise of a third COVID-19 relief check ahead of Georgia’s 2021 Senate runoffs — a direct, universal cash payment tied explicitly to an election outcome sits in less-tested legal territory. The Supreme Court has previously upheld a comparable promise, ruling unanimously in 1982 that a Kentucky official’s pledge to lower salaries did not invalidate his election, and Reuters noted that voters would likely have difficulty proving direct harm in any legal challenge to Trump’s dividend.
Part of a Broader Pattern, Padilla Argues
Padilla’s accusation that Trump is “the most corrupt president in history” did not emerge in isolation. The senator has spent much of 2026 building a public record accusing the administration of self-dealing. In July, Padilla joined Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer to launch an anti-corruption working group examining what they described as Trump’s “rampant self-dealing.” At the time, Padilla said, “In this Administration, corruption flows from the top down. From sweetheart deals with the DOJ to stock purchases ahead of mega-million government contracts and payments for pardons, the pattern is clear: the grift is coming directly from the Oval Office.”
The following week, Padilla and Schumer introduced the Anti-Corruption Bureau Creation Act, legislation that would create a private right of action allowing the public and state attorneys general to sue for recoveries from federal officials, including the president and vice president, who profit through corruption. “If we care about preserving our democracy for future generations, corruption must not just be called out; it must be met with action,” Padilla said in introducing the bill.
Targeting Trump’s Financial Dealings Directly
In August, Padilla introduced the Stop Corrupt Trading Act after Trump Media Group began charging financial traders $100,000 per month for early access to Trump’s Truth Social posts. Padilla’s office noted the president owns more than 50 percent of the company. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington praised the bill, saying it would “prohibit this blatant corruption” and ensure “our government is not for sale.”
Padilla has also pushed back on Trump administration requests for taxpayer funds. In late 2025, he joined Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats in condemning Trump’s demand that the Department of Justice pay him $230 million in alleged damages stemming from past investigations, calling it “yet another attempt by President Trump to weaponize his position of power for personal financial gain at the expense of American taxpayers.”
Convention Speech Fuels Midterm Stakes
Trump’s dividend pledge came on the opening night of what Republicans have billed as their first-ever midterm convention, a two-day event in Dallas some Republicans have nicknamed “Trumpapalooza.” Trump urged supporters to treat the November elections as a referendum on his own presidency despite being constitutionally barred from a third term. “I’m asking you to pretend that I’m on the ballot,” he told the crowd. Vice President Vance is scheduled to deliver the convention’s keynote address, while Trump delivered closing remarks Thursday night.
A History of Unfulfilled Dividend Promises
Thursday’s proposal is not the first time Trump has floated a direct payment to Americans. In November 2025, he promised a $2,000 “tariff dividend” tied to trade revenue, saying it would exclude wealthy earners; no legislation followed. The administration did successfully deliver a one-time $1,776 “warrior dividend” to roughly 1.45 million military service members in December 2025, funded through money Congress had already approved. On Thursday, the White House also announced that nearly 1 million Americans would receive $500 payments tied to what it described as excess fees charged under the Affordable Care Act.
The Democratic National Committee has pointed to the unfulfilled 2025 tariff dividend as evidence that Trump has a pattern of promising rebate checks that fail to materialize.
What Happens Next
Any payment would require congressional approval, since spending authority rests with Congress under the Constitution. Republicans hold narrow majorities in both chambers, and Democrats are expected to unanimously oppose the measure, likely blocking it in the Senate, where most legislation requires 60 votes to advance. Republicans could attempt to pass the dividend through the budget reconciliation process, which allows a simple majority vote and bypasses the filibuster — a maneuver they have used twice since Trump returned to office in January 2025, though a third attempt has proven difficult to advance. With the House scheduled to be in session for only one week before the November 3 election, any action would likely have to wait until a post-election “lame-duck” session.
Padilla, who serves as ranking member of the Senate Rules Committee, has positioned election integrity and government accountability as central themes of his opposition to the administration heading into the midterms. His Thursday statement adds the $5,000 dividend to a growing list of administration actions he has characterized as corrupt, as both parties brace for a November election that could determine control of Congress for the remainder of Trump’s term.