Susan Collins offers no take on Trump’s $5,000 ‘dividend,’ then calls it ‘costly’

Senator Collins Criticizes Trump’s $5,000 “Midterm Dividend” Plan

In a swift turnaround, Maine’s senior Republican senator, Susan Collins, has voiced sharp doubts about President Donald Trump’s proposal to hand out $5,000 to every American adult if Republicans win the 2026 midterm elections. Collins, the Senate Appropriations Committee chair and a 73‑year‑old veteran of the Senate, first said she had not yet seen the president’s speech and later clarified that the plan would be “extraordinarily costly” and raise legal questions.

What Trump Proposed

At the Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas, the president outlined a scheme that would pay a one‑time dividend of $5,000 to every adult citizen if the GOP retained control of both chambers of Congress in November. Trump said the money would be spent domestically, but offered no details on funding or how the payments would be financed. He urged voters to “pretend that I’m on the ballot,” a call that has drawn criticism from lawmakers who did not attend the convention, including Collins.

Collins’ Response

Collins first appeared on a campaign trail in Naples, Maine, at a sand‑and‑gravel supplier where she was receiving the endorsement of the National Federation of Independent Business. “I was campaigning until late last night … and then started up first thing this morning, so I have not had a chance to look at that, and I’m not familiar with that proposal,” she told reporters. Hours later, her office issued a statement after reviewing the president’s remarks.

“From the few details we have, it seems that the proposed $5,000 dividend would not have an income cap and would be extraordinarily costly,” Collins said. “Tax and spending decisions should be made based on the needs of the American people and the state of the economy; they should not appear to be tied to election results.” She added that the plan would require congressional approval and could cost more than $1 trillion.

Other Political Voices

The idea was met with swift skepticism across the aisle. Representative Jared Golden, a Democrat from Maine’s 2nd District, declined to comment. Democrat Chellie Pingree, a 1st District representative, blasted the proposal as “flagrantly illegal and pathetically desperate.” On social media, Pingree posted, “Notice how he’s not even trying to hide his illegal scheme? He is flaunting it, because he knows Republicans will let him get away with it.”

Independent Senator Angus King, who caucuses with Democrats, cited federal law that prohibits spending money to influence voting. “He’s promising people money that he’s borrowing from their kids,” King said. “Republicans could win elections by focusing on having better ideas or better candidates rather than trying to bribe the voters.” King also noted that the federal debt has recently topped $40 trillion, raising concerns about how a $1 trillion program would be financed.

Republican Representative JD Vance offered a different take. “I don’t think it’s a controversial idea,” he said, suggesting that tariff revenue could cover the costs of the dividend.

Collins’ Record on Trump‑Era Policies

Collins has been a polarizing figure among Maine voters. While she has voted with President Trump on many occasions, she has also taken stands that differ from his agenda. In 2025, Collins voted to advance the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” a package that included the “Trump Accounts” program—providing families with $1,000 for each child born between 2025 and 2028—but opposed the bill’s final passage. Earlier in her career, Trump praised Collins as a “sane woman” and a respected person.

Her campaign in the 2026 Senate race, which pits her against former Maine Senate President Troy Jackson, has emphasized her independence and influence. “I want to be seen as a senator who thinks for herself and who is willing to stand up for Maine even when it means going against the party line,” she has said in interviews.

Legal and Fiscal Concerns

The proposal would require a federal appropriation, potentially exceeding $1 trillion. The lack of an income cap has raised concerns about fairness and fiscal responsibility. Legal experts point to statutes that forbid the use of public funds to influence voters, suggesting that the plan could violate federal law.

“We would need to see a detailed budget that shows how the money would be paid out, how it would be funded, and assurances that it is not a form of voter bribery,” said a law professor at the University of Maine. “Without that, it remains a speculative and potentially illegal initiative.”

Looking Ahead

The debate over Trump’s $5,000 midterm dividend arrives at a time when both parties are gearing up for a contested election that many voters view as a referendum on affordability, health care, and the national debt. As Senator Collins and other lawmakers weigh in, the question remains whether such a bold financial incentive can be reconciled with constitutional constraints and responsible fiscal policy.

For Collins, the message is clear: “We must base tax and spending decisions on the needs of the American people and the state of the economy, not on the desire to sway the results of an election.” Whether the proposal moves beyond rhetoric into concrete legislation will depend on the political will of a Congress that must grapple with the fiscal implications and the legal challenges that loom large.