This time, it was not a wall, not a tweet, but a big “everyone has a share” gift package.
In an interview, he said that he was considering giving Americans a "tariff subsidy" of US$1000 to US$2000 per person, saying this was a benefit the American people deserved and money "taken back" from trade income.
As soon as the news came out, many people's eyes lit up, but others frowned. Where does the money come from? Who should receive it? Can you really send it out? This seems to be a policy discussion, but it is actually more like a political operation.
We might as well take a look at the logic behind this and see whether this "red envelope" is a real benefit or a bad check.
Is the beautiful looking money bag really so plump?
In the end, this can’t avoid the question: who made the money? and Trump’s explanation is that it came from “tariff revenues.”
He believes that the United States has eaten too much in foreign trade, and now, by raising taxes, takes back that portion of the profits and turns into the country's income, used to "benefit" the Americans.
It sounds smooth, but the problem is that the government's ledger is not that simple. The so-called "tariff revenue" is not collected directly from foreign companies or foreign governments. It is a tax added to imported goods, and the people who ultimately pay the bill are often consumers in the United States.
That is, once the goods are taxed, the price will probably rise, and the people themselves will pay.
The policy first makes you spend a little more money and then tells you that the government will “return” that portion of the money to you.
This is not "sending red envelopes", but more like "deducting first and then going back". The point is, can the government really make a lot of money from it to send out red envelopes? Judging from the current financial situation, this statement is a bit too optimistic.
Not to mention how much this "universal subsidy" operation costs. Even if the scope is narrowed down to some people, spending often costs tens of billions of dollars or even hundreds of billions of dollars, it is not a small amount for the federal government, which is already financially tight. If money is to be sent out, the account must be calculated clearly, otherwise it will only leave a huge financial black hole.
The pressure of price increase has not landed, and the red envelope opens first
Let's take a look at the ins and outs of this money. The original intention of the tax increase is to increase the cost of foreign goods to force concessions or encourage the development of domestic manufacturing. But reality is not so smooth.
In order to cope with tariff pressure, importers are likely to pass on the increased costs, and commodity prices will naturally rise.
People's daily consumption of food and clothing is increasing. What they feel is not that "the country has become richer", but that "their wallets have become thinner."
This price increase is not a floating cloud, but is truly reflected in life. Even small rice cookers, toys, and clothing, as long as they are imported, their prices will be affected.
And this pressure is especially real for ordinary families. A few dollars or more than ten dollars up, it seems nothing, but it adds up to a big burden.
Then the question is: Is the current subsidy plan enough to offset the costs caused by these price increases? Even if it is really distributed, can it make up for the increased living expenses due to the tariff policy in the past few years?
From this perspective, this red envelope is more like "policy compensation", not an extra benefit, but a "band-aid" to fill in the side effects of the policy.
Moreover, the red package is a "unique amount", but the price increase effect is "different from person to person".
High-income groups buy more and have different consumption structures, so the price impact may not be so great; However, low-income people are more sensitive to price changes, and their living pressure is heavier. If they give money equally, they may not be able to achieve the "fair" effect. It seems that the whole people benefit, but in fact the effect is uneven.
The law is stuck in the throat, the policy is terrible.
To take a step back, even if Trump really has this intention, he is really prepared to do so. Whether this matter can be really implemented depends on the face of the system.
In the United States, government spending is not decided by the president alone.The right to approve the federal budget belongs to Congress, and any large-scale spending must be driven by Congress.
The problem is that Trump's proposal is not only huge in amount, but also controversial in policy rationality. In the current Congress, not only are Democrats unlikely to support it, but even some Republicans may not necessarily buy it.
They are worried that this vote-oriented "money-throwing" behavior will increase the fiscal burden and may trigger new inflationary pressures.
More importantly, Trump's tariff policy itself also faces legal challenges. The court had previously ruled that some of the tariff increases were beyond the president's authority.
This means that if the court ultimately finds these operations illegal, the "tariff revenue" based on this may also be ruled invalid, and the government may even need to refund some of the "illegally collected" taxes.
Once this is the case, not only will this "red envelope" not be issued, but the government may also face huge tax refund pressure. This is not a simple fiscal issue, but a chain reaction that could trigger a chain of political, legal and economic chaos.
Looking at Trump's statement, more often this proposal is like a "campaign promise" rather than a foregone conclusion policy plan.
In an interview with the media, he threw out this idea, which was more to create public opinion and win the attention of voters, rather than a formal plan that had been written into the budget and completed the procedure.
From this perspective, this "national red envelope" is more like a "policy test" or even an "emotional marketing".
A game of populism and reality.
This is not the first time Trump has used a "simple and direct" approach to attract voters 'attention. He is good at packaging complex policies in popular language, describing fiscal expenditures as "gifts from the country", describing tariff increases as "winning the trade war", and then packaging subsidy compensation as "fighting for profits for the people."
This statement is very appealing and sounds disheartening, but reality works far more complex than words.
Policy is not a slogan, and fiscal deficits are not resolved by a promise.The U.S. government debt has continued to expand over the past few years, and government spending has been tight.
If combined with a huge national subsidy, it is not only difficult to sustain, but it can also trigger more serious inflation problems.
From the perspective of international relations, this operation of “tax increases in exchange for benefits” will also undermine the credibility of the United States in the global trade system.
It is impossible for other countries to sit idly by. Once retaliatory measures are implemented, the overseas markets of American companies will face greater pressure and the supply chain will be further disrupted.
Those who will ultimately be affected are ordinary consumers. Goods cannot come in, prices cannot be raised, and corporate costs will rise, and they will eventually be forced into everyone's life.
Therefore, this "red envelope storm" is not only a question of whether money is sent or not, but also a test of the logic of American economic governance.
conclusion
The seemingly lively "national red envelope" is actually a carefully designed campaign topic packaging. On the surface, it is to give money, but in essence it is to win over people's hearts in the name of policies.
But policy is not a slap on the head, and finance is not a bottomless hole. When the pressure of price increases is actually spreading on people's tables, it would be an understatement to write it off with a check.
This discussion of “spending money” is, in the end, a reality test of populism.When policies take the starting point and ignore feasibility and sustainability, the ultimate hurt is not the policy makers, but the people who really need a stable life.
The court's judgment and the statement of Congress are the keys to really determine the fate of this "red envelope". Before that, what we should ask more is whether such a policy direction can bring long-term fairness and stability, or is it just a fireworks that flashes briefly in the election campaign.
Source: Government stopped but added tariff red package What does Trump do? —2025-10-03 17:31· see news