WASHINGTON, D.C. – A fiery debate has erupted over the controversial “DOGE dividend” proposal, which aims to send $5,000 checks to American households using savings generated by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under Elon Musk and President Donald Trump.
The idea, introduced by James Fishback, CEO of Azoria Investments, suggests returning 20% of DOGE’s reported savings directly to citizens. While some conservatives back the plan as a reward for cutting wasteful government spending, critics warn it could increase inflation and worsen the country’s massive $36 trillion national debt.
What Is the DOGE Dividend Proposal?
The DOGE dividend, championed by Fishback, is designed to:
- Return 20% of DOGE’s savings to American households as a “dividend”
- Provide up to $5,000 per household if DOGE’s projected savings of $2 trillion materialize
- Incentivize citizens to report government waste and fraud to increase the size of future dividends
Fishback frames the program as a way to make everyday Americans active participants in government accountability.
“The more DOGE saves, the bigger the DOGE Dividend check is,” Fishback told Newsweek. “That is a very powerful incentive for people to step up and report government waste.”
Smerconish vs. Fishback: The CNN Clash
During a heated interview on CNN, host Michael Smerconish labeled the proposal a “Ponzi scheme”, arguing that the U.S. government’s crushing debt should be the top priority, not handing out checks.
“We owe $36 trillion. It’s a fraud to say we have $5,000 to give each of you because of what Musk is doing,” Smerconish said. “The only way we have that money is if we borrow it.”
Fishback fired back, defending the plan as a way to reward taxpayers while eliminating waste. The exchange became increasingly tense, with both men speaking over each other before Smerconish threatened to cut Fishback’s microphone.
Support and Criticism From Lawmakers
The DOGE dividend has divided lawmakers across party lines:
Supporters:
- Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO): Endorsed the idea of returning savings to taxpayers, comparing it to direct relief measures taken during the COVID-19 pandemic.
- President Trump: Said the proposal is “under consideration”, suggesting that 20% of savings could go toward citizens while another 20% reduces the national debt.
Critics:
- Representative Jasmine Crockett (D-TX): Criticized the plan as short-sighted, arguing that one-time checks won’t help Americans if government program cuts lead to job losses.
- Democrats and Economic Experts: Warn the plan could worsen inflation and deepen economic inequality while doing little to address the underlying causes of wasteful spending.
“What’s $5,000 when you don’t have Social Security, Medicaid, or SNAP benefits?” Crockett tweeted.
The Economic Argument: Boost or Burden?
Supporters of the DOGE dividend argue that it will:
- Reward taxpayers for government efficiency
- Encourage citizen involvement in identifying waste
- Stimulate the economy through direct cash injections
However, critics warn of several risks:
- Increased inflation as sudden cash boosts drive consumer spending
- Worsening of the national debt, with savings failing to offset the cost of the checks
- Cuts to essential programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and SNAP could hurt the most vulnerable Americans
The Peterson Institute for International Economics projects that by 2050, up to 50% of U.S. revenue could be spent just paying interest on the national debt if current trends continue.
What Happens Next?
The fate of the DOGE dividend hinges on several factors:
- Legislative Approval – Congress would need to pass a bill authorizing the payments.
- Effectiveness of DOGE – Recent reports revealed that DOGE mistakenly claimed $8 billion in savings but later corrected that figure to $8 million, raising questions about the accuracy of its claims.
- Trump Administration’s Commitment – While Trump has shown openness to the idea, he has yet to officially endorse the plan.
For now, the proposal remains a divisive issue, with supporters seeing it as a revolutionary approach to fiscal accountability and critics labeling it an unsustainable financial gimmick.
