Challenge #2: The Legal Battle Over Tariffs
Even if funding were available, there’s another major obstacle — legality. Several lower courts have already ruled that aspects of Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs were improper or illegal. As a result:
-
Multiple lawsuits emerged
-
And the Supreme Court has recently heard arguments
If the Supreme Court upholds the lower courts’ decisions, the entire tariff mechanism could be weakened or dismantled. And if the tariffs collapse? So does the revenue. And so does the $2,000 dividend. Without tariffs, there is no funding source for this proposal. This means the promise is not only financially uncertain — it is legally fragile.
Why Trump Pushed the Timeline to 2026
During a conversation with reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump addressed the growing curiosity around the promised dividend. He confirmed the payments would not occur this year, stating: “It will be next year… The tariffs allow us to give a dividend.” He also emphasized that his administration intended to reduce national debt at the same time — another ambitious goal that would require significant revenue.
So, the earliest possible timeline is:
-
2026, if legislation passes
-
and if tariffs remain intact
-
and if the required funds are available
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent added another important detail: “We will see. We need legislation for that.” That single sentence highlights one of the biggest realities about this promise: A president cannot unilaterally distribute $2,000 checks to the entire population. Congress must authorize it. And Congress has historically struggled to agree on direct payments — even during emergencies.
Why This Promise Is Different From Others
Trump has made many bold commitments in the past:
