President Donald Trump has revived one of his most controversial economic proposals: issuing $2,000 stimulus checks funded exclusively through tariff revenue. These are not the same as the stimulus checks issued during the pandemic, because those were financed with debt (generating inflation), while the current ones would be funded solely by tariffs on foreign imports.
However, after the bold rhetoric and optimism displayed in his statements to The New York Times, there is an unavoidable institutional reality hidden behind the proposal of stimulus checks, and a path riddled with legal obstacles that turns the promise into a political mirage, for now.
Trump Set a New Timeline for the Stimulus Checks
The idea, in theory, is simple: use the immense revenue generated by the tariffs imposed during his term and in his future administration to fund a direct dividend for citizens. Trump has insisted that these funds are “so substantial” and come from “other sources,” hinting at the possibility of circumventing the traditional budget process.
He has even offered a new timeline, suggesting their availability toward “the end of the year”. This narrative of executive agility and direct benefit has undeniable populist appeal.
However, this proposal rests on extremely fragile constitutional foundations. Experts in budgetary law and the recent history of the stimulus checks point to an invariable mechanism: any direct and massive disbursement from the U.S. Treasury to citizens requires the express authorization of Congress.
This is established by Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, which grants the legislative branch the exclusive power to appropriate federal funds. There is no magic button in the Oval Office to activate transfers of this magnitude.
The Limitations to Trump’s Proposed Stimulus Payments
White House economic advisor Kevin Hassett, who serves for the Trump administration, had previously emphasized that such checks would require congressional approval. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s statement to Reuters regarding the existence of $774 billion in the Treasury does not alter this fundamental principle.
These funds, regardless of their origin, are subject to legislative oversight. The idea of a parallel government financed by tariffs is, in essence, a legal fiction.
The second, and perhaps more decisive, battlefront is the judicial one. The very constitutionality of Trump’s aggressive tariff policy has yet to receive a final verdict from the Supreme Court.
Should the high courts eventually rule that these tariffs were levied illegally, the government would be forced to undertake colossal refunds to the affected companies.
Why the Congress Could Delay Your Stimulus Checks
This would not only evaporate the supposed “fortune” to which the former president alludes, but could also leave a fiscal hole of hundreds of billions. Building a promise of universal payments on revenue whose legality is in question is a high-stakes gamble.
Even if Republicans hold a majority in Congress following the 2024 elections, internal consensus is not guaranteed, leading to significant party fractures.
Opposition from Democratic lawmakers is expected, who may insist on reshaping the proposal—potentially by connecting direct disbursements to wider economic stabilization efforts or including safeguards against inflationary pressure. Previous economic interventions during 2020 and 2021 have been associated with subsequent inflationary pressures.
Competing legislative aims, such as healthcare policy changes or matters related to the Supreme Court noted in recent debates, could deprioritize the stimulus discussion. Should legislation eventually advance, it is likely to encounter procedural delays—including amendments, filibusters, or potential executive vetoes—extending final deliberations well into late 2026 or later.
