Generated Title: Trump's $2,000 Tariff Check Promise: Math Says "Highly Unlikely"

Okay, so the former president is floating the idea of a $2,000 "dividend" for most Americans, funded by tariff revenue. Trump took to Truth Social to make the announcement. The post also made a point to call people against tariffs "FOOLS!" Let's run the numbers, shall we?

The Treasury Department says customs duties for the first three quarters of the year totaled $195 billion. Sounds like a lot, right? But here's the rub: Erica York at the Tax Foundation estimates that giving $2,000 to every adult earning under $100,000 would cost around $300 billion. That's a discrepancy of, well, $105 billion. And that's before we factor in the kids. If children are included (and politically, how could they not be?), the cost balloons even further.

The Tariff Mirage

York also points out that tariffs have raised a net $90 billion in revenue after accounting for the full budgetary impact. John Arnold, co-chair of Arnold Ventures, pegs the dividend payments at a possible $513 billion. These aren’t small differences; we're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars here. The math simply doesn't add up.

And this is the part of the report that I find genuinely puzzling. How can a policy proposal be taken seriously when the basic arithmetic is so obviously flawed? Are we supposed to ignore the fact that the proposed payout is multiple times larger than the revenue source?

It's not the first time this kind of "stimulus check" has been bandied about. Back in February, there was talk of a $5,000 "dividend" based on savings from a supposed "department of government efficiency" (Doge). That, predictably, went nowhere. The national deficit actually increased under Doge, and the amount cut from federal spending was significantly exaggerated.

We also had Senator Hawley proposing $600 tariff rebates earlier this year. That bill was referred to a Senate committee and then… nothing. No updates since September. It seems these proposals have a shelf life shorter than unrefrigerated milk.

One Question: Is it deliberate obfuscation, or just plain innumeracy?

The Consumer Burden

The Yale Budget Lab reports that consumers are paying an average effective tariff rate of nearly 18% as of October – the highest since 1934. Companies are passing on at least some of those costs, which means consumers are effectively paying for these tariffs.

Representative Khanna suggested a $2,000 stimulus check for families making under $100,000 to offset rising costs (he posted about it on X, formerly Twitter). Khanna later added that he was proposing a bill to Congress to make his idea a reality. But, again, no official news from Congress on the proposal.

Another Question: If the goal is to offset the burden of tariffs, wouldn't it be simpler to just reduce the tariffs? Or is the political appeal of a "stimulus check" too tempting to resist?

It is worth noting that some states are sending out "inflation relief checks" – New York, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Colorado. But these are one-time payments, varying in amount, and tied to specific state-level conditions. They're not federal stimulus checks, and they're certainly not "tariff dividends."

Smoke and Mirrors

The narrative around these "stimulus checks" is starting to feel like a magician's act. Plenty of misdirection, a lot of enthusiastic pronouncements, and ultimately… nothing materializes. The $2,000 tariff check proposal is, at best, a highly improbable scenario and, at worst, a cynical attempt to manipulate public opinion. Trump weighs giving Americans $2,000 from tariff revenues in bid for support

The Data Doesn't Lie

Trump's $2,000 tariff check promise? The math says "highly unlikely.