2026-09-14T16:09:38.533Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
当美国总统唐纳德·特朗普表示，如果共和党在2026年中期选举中保住多数席位，他将向每位美国成年公民发放5000美元时，参议员罗杰·马歇尔是最早公开支持这一想法的议员之一。
“共和党在11月获胜后，来聊聊你会怎么花这笔5000美元的‘特朗普红利’吧。”这位堪萨斯州共和党人周三深夜在X平台上发帖称。
但到了周六，马歇尔在堪萨斯州博览会的辩论会上则表现出了明显的怀疑态度。
“我会收集所有相关信息，再做决定，”面临竞争异常激烈的连任竞选的马歇尔说道，“不过话说回来，我不同意特朗普总统的情况已经不是第一次了，大概率也不会是最后一次。”
这就像一场慢动作的后空翻——从明显的热情支持，到态度摇摆不定，再到马歇尔显然在与该提议保持距离。
但这几乎不是最近几天特朗普盟友们在言辞上打太极的唯一例子。
有时特朗普似乎很享受用这类提议让盟友们陷入尴尬——而他们也确实尴尬不已。
鉴于美国国债刚突破40万亿美元，许多共和党人显然对特朗普单方面支出超过1万亿美元的想法感到不安，更何况这明显是一项以选举结果为交换条件的交易。但直接表达这种不满并不讨喜。因此他们试图换个说法包装此事。
周日在CNN的《国情咨文》节目中，众议院议长迈克·约翰逊告诉主持人杰克·塔珀，这是一个“有创意的想法”。他暗示该计划需要国会批准，尽管特朗普对此表示过质疑。
随后约翰逊化身“特朗普翻译官”——将这项非常具体的提议解读为特朗普只是在表达一个更宽泛的观点。
“但我认为杰克，他当时想要表达的是，如果你想让口袋里有更多钱，就必须让共和党继续掌权，”约翰逊说道。
同样在周日，NBC新闻的克里斯汀·韦尔克在《与媒体见面》节目中指出，缅因州共和党参议员苏珊·柯林斯——和马歇尔一样面临连任竞选——表示这些支票“不应看起来与选举结果挂钩”。
约翰逊回应称“民主党人正是这么说的”。但韦尔克三次强调，她引用的是一名共和党人的观点。
“是的，我明白，我明白，”约翰逊说道，“当然，当然。”
（事实上，柯林斯并不是右翼阵营中唯一提出此类担忧的人。一些保守派人士甚至将这些支票贴上了“贿赂”的标签。）
得克萨斯州共和党众议员帕特·法伦周四在福克斯新闻上也试图淡化该安排的贿赂性质。
“特朗普总统并不是说，如果我们获胜，就会这么做，”法伦声称，“他是说，我们将有能力这么做，因为我们届时将拥有足够的投票支持。”
但特朗普明确表示，如果共和党获胜，他就会兑现承诺，没有任何附加条件，而且显然不需要国会批准。随后他在周日补充道：“5000美元支票一定会落实，百分百会。”
纽约州众议员迈克·劳勒周日在ABC的《本周》节目中竭力避免在这个问题上被明确表态。他表示自己支持“将钱放回辛勤工作的美国人的口袋里”，但当被追问5000美元支票的问题时，他坚称这“不是一个是或否的问题”。
“我们在纽约州等地都见过，他们总是在选举前邮寄退税支票，”劳勒周四在另一次采访中告诉CNN的凯西·亨特，“所以我不认为这是昨晚才提出的新点子。”
但劳勒提到的那些退税支票，并不会要求选民做出特定选举承诺作为交换——而这正是此次提议的问题所在。
但法伦并不是唯一一个对该问题提出新奇辩解的特朗普盟友。
当纽smax问及佐治亚州众议员安德鲁·克莱德，该计划是否属于贿赂时，他没有否认，反而称其为“一个有趣的计划”。
福克斯新闻主持人格雷格·古特费尔德坚称这不是贿赂，“因为它不是秘密进行的”，而且“这本来就是你们的钱”。
同为福克斯主持人的杰西·沃特斯则称其为“不是贿赂；我们称之为诱惑”。他还暗示这笔付款可能永远不会兑现——将其比作一名女性“解开内衣肩带”，以此挑逗和调情，却无意与对方发展亲密关系。
当沃特斯询问参议员特德·克鲁兹对此的看法时，这位得克萨斯州共和党人表示，他希望该计划“结构上能作为退税”，以激励工作，而不是发给那些不工作的人。但特朗普在其提议中并未做出此类区分。
同样，副总统JD·万斯周三深夜在福克斯新闻对富豪主持人表示：“你们不需要这笔钱；这是给美国中产阶级的。”但特朗普曾表示，这笔钱将发放给“每位成年公民”。
随后万斯和其他人一样，声称政府只是在分享关税带来的全部财富。
“我不认为这是一个有争议的想法，”万斯在谈到一项甚至许多共和党人都反对的提议时说道，“这实际上是美国总统在说……如果我们继续创造财富，这些财富就会回馈给美国人民。”
但到目前为止，关税带来的收入远远不够。根据财政部的数据，2025年的关税收入为2640亿美元。（最高法院驳回了特朗普的多项关税政策，并迫使政府退还相关款项。）右翼智库税收基金会估计，需要近十年时间，关税才能筹集到覆盖特朗普提议所需的1万亿美元以上资金。
所有这些都暂且不提，这笔支票可能会加剧本已持续存在的通胀——而许多特朗普盟友称他们非常关注通胀问题。
还有，如果特朗普能让该提议通过法律审查，那么这一先例可能会被民主党总统利用，以重新分配财富。
换句话说，共和党人有充分理由反对这项提议。所以他们一直在回避问题，将其描述得与本质截然不同。
Republicans are squirming over Trump’s $5,000 check quid pro quo
2026-09-14T16:09:38.533Z / CNN
When President Donald Trump said he would give adult US citizens $5,000 each if they reelected Republican majorities in the 2026 midterm elections, Sen. Roger Marshall was one of the first lawmakers to tout the idea.
“Comment how you will spend your $5,000 Trump Dividend when Republicans win in November,” the Kansas Republican posted late Wednesday night on X.
By Saturday, though, Marshall sounded a much more skeptical note during a debate at the Kansas State Fair.
“I’m going to bring in all the information, and then make a decision,” said Marshall, who faces a surprisingly competitive reelection race. “But look, this is not the first time I’ve disagreed with President Trump, and it probably won’t be the last.”
It was like a slow-motion backflip — from apparent enthusiastic support, to undecided, to Marshall apparently distancing himself.
But it’s hardly the only example of Trump allies’ rhetorical gymnastics in recent days.
Sometimes it seems like Trump almost enjoys making allies squirm with proposals like this — and squirm they have.
Many Republicans are clearly uncomfortable with the idea of Trump unilaterally shelling out more than $1 trillion when the national debt just crossed $40 trillion, and doing so as part of a readily apparent quid pro quo. But it’s not fun to actually say that. So they’ve tried to dress it up.
On CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, House Speaker Mike Johnson told host Jake Tapper that it was a “creative idea.” He signaled Congress would be needed, even though Trump has cast doubt on that.
Then Johnson put on his Trump translator cap — talking as if this very specific proposal was just Trump making a broader point.
“But I think what he was articulating there, Jake, is that he’s saying that, if you want more money in your pocket, you have to keep Republicans in charge,” Johnson said.
Also on Sunday, NBC’s Kristen Welker noted on “Meet the Press” that Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine — who like Marshall is up for reelection — said that the checks “should not appear to be tied to election results.”
Johnson responded by citing “the Democrats who are making that claim.” But Welker noted three times that she was citing a Republican.
“Yes, I understand that. I understand,” Johnson said. “Sure, sure.”
(Indeed, Collins isn’t the only one raising that concern on the right. Some conservatives have even labeled the checks a bribe.)
GOP Rep. Pat Fallon of Texas also tried to tone down the bribe-y nature of the arrangement Thursday on Fox News.
“President Trump isn’t saying that, if we win, we’ll do this,” Fallon claimed. “He’s saying we’ll be in a position to do this because we’ll have the votes to do it.”
But Trump said explicitly that he would do it if Republicans won, without qualification and apparently without Congress. Then he added Sunday, “The $5,000 is gonna happen, 100%.”
New York Rep. Mike Lawler on ABC’s “This Week” strained on Sunday to avoid being pinned down on the issue. He said he supported “putting money back in the pockets of hard-working Americans,” but when pressed on the $5,000 checks, maintained that it was “not a yes-or-no” question.
“We certainly see in states like New York, they mail out refund checks all the time right before election time,” Lawler told CNN’s Kasie Hunt in another interview Thursday. “So, I don’t think it’s a new idea that’s been issued last night.”
But those refund checks Lawler was talking about weren’t being offered only if voters delivered a specific outcome — that’s the part that’s so problematic here.
But Fallon isn’t the only Trump ally to offer a novel take on that subject.
When Newsmax asked Rep. Andrew Clyde of Georgia if the plan was a bribe, he didn’t disagree but instead called it “an interesting plan.”
Fox News host Greg Gutfeld maintained that it wasn’t a bribe “because it’s not done in secret” and “it’s your money.”
Fellow Fox host Jesse Watters said it was “not a bribe; we’re calling it an enticement.” He also suggested the payments might never materialize — comparing it to a woman who “lowers her brassiere” to tease and flirt with a man she has no intention of getting romantic with.
When Watters asked Sen. Ted Cruz about the idea, the Texas Republican said he wanted to see it “structured as a tax refund” to incentivize work and not give it to people who aren’t working. But Trump made no such distinction in his proposal.
Similarly, Vice President JD Vance told Fox’s wealthy hosts late Wednesday night, “You guys don’t need it; this is for the American middle class.” But Trump said the money would go to “every adult citizen.”
Then Vance, like others, claimed the administration was just sharing all the wealth generated by tariffs.
“I don’t think it’s a controversial idea,” Vance said of an idea that even many Republicans have come to oppose. “It’s actually the president of the United States saying … if we continue to create wealth, that wealth is going to go back to the American people.”
But so far, the tariffs haven’t generated nearly enough money. Tariff revenue in 2025 was $264 billion, according to the Treasury Department. (The Supreme Court struck down many of Trump’s tariffs and forced the government to refund them.) And the right-leaning think tank the Tax Foundation estimates it would take the tariffs nearly a decade to generate the $1 trillion-plus in revenue required to cover Trump’s proposal.
All of that’s to say nothing of the fact that the checks would likely exacerbate already persistent inflation — an issue many Trump allies say they care about.
Oh, and that setting this precedent — if Trump could make it pass legal muster — is something that a Democratic president could exploit to redistribute wealth.
In other words, there’s plenty for the GOP to hate about this proposal. So they just keep dancing around it and talking about it as if it’s something that it’s not.
发表回复