Arkansas’ members of Congress reacted cooly to President Trump’s proposal to send a $5,000 “Trump dividend” to every adult American if Republicans retain their congressional majorities this November.

None of the five who answered questions explicitly endorsed the proposal, though they avoided directly criticizing it. 

In the Senate, Sen. Tom Cotton’s spokesperson said he “wants to put money back in the pockets of working Arkansans by continuing to lower taxes.” Sen. John Boozman’s office said he is “certainly interested in helping keep as much money in the American people’s pockets as possible” and looked forward to hearing more details. 

In the House, Rep. French Hill said the focus instead should be on implementing lasting policies such as his recently passed 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act along with Republican-passed tax reforms. Similarly, Rep. Bruce Westerman supports longterm policies encouraging business growth, good wages, reducing bureaucracy and regulations, lowering taxes, and reforming health care. Rep. Steve Womack said he had not seen the full proposal but had “concerns.” Rep. Rick Crawford did not respond to a request for comment. 

All of those but Boozman are up for re-election this year. Of the five, Cotton and Hill have the most competitive races. 

Cotton’s Democratic opponent, Hallie Shoffner, said in a statement that Trump already has not delivered promised checks he said would result from tariffs and from budget cuts stemming from Elon Musk’s Department of Governmental Efficiency. Libertarian candidate Jeff Wadlin told me the proposal was “gross” and compared it to “offering a bribe.”

Hill’s Democratic opponent, Chris Jones, told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that presidents should not tie public money to winning an election. He asked why Trump is not sending the proposal to the Republican-led Congress now.

Trump proposed issuing the dividends last week at the Republican Party’s midterm convention in Dallas, which none of the state’s members of Congress attended. Neither did Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders due to a last-minute, family-related scheduling conflict, the Democrat-Gazette reported.

Trump offered no details in his speech about how his proposal would work, beyond an unenforceable provision requiring Americans to spend the money in this country. 

But he is the president of the United States. A president’s words should be sober and serious. So the rest of this column will take what he said seriously.

If enacted, the “Trump dividend” would cost more than $1.2 trillion, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB). That amount would be greater than all three COVID stimulus payments sent to Americans during the pandemic. When added to what Uncle Sam is already borrowing next year, it would increase the 2027 federal budget deficit to $3.1 trillion. 

The cumulative national debt has surpassed $40 trillion, or roughly $116,800 for every American. Just like everyone else, the government must pay interest when it borrows money. And it pays a lot – almost $1 trillion last year – about three times what it paid in 2021. It spends more on interest costs than it does on national defense. 

If the government sends every adult $5,000 next year, the federal budget deficit would equal 9.4% of gross domestic product, the CRFB says. In other words, that percentage of the economy would be coming from government borrowing. Even without the checks, the Congressional Budget Office projects the deficit will be 5.8% of GDP this year. 

Meanwhile, interest rates on U.S. Treasury bonds have been rising. For example, the 30-year note reached 5.3% in August, the highest in 19 years. Current and future taxpayers are paying that much money to domestic and foreign investors, including China, to service the debt. 

The good news about Trump’s proposal would be that each adult American would have an additional $5,000. 

The bad news would be that it would further increase the debt and increase inflation, as the COVID payments did. That’s because more money quickly would enter circulation without a corresponding increase in goods and services. To tame that inflation, the Federal Reserve might then increase interest rates.

Would the benefits of the president’s proposal outweigh the costs? 

The state’s members of Congress, at least so far, aren’t arguing very forcefully that they would. 

© 2026 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

Steve Brawner’s column is syndicated to 24 news outlets in Arkansas. Email him at brawnersteve@mac.com.