特朗普的交易式总统任期变得更加肆无忌惮

Trump’s transactional presidency takes a more brazen turn

2026-09-17T17:04:08.272Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/17/politics/trump-quid-pro-quo

Few things have defined President Donald Trump’s second term as much as his transactionalism. He’s gone to great lengths to wield potential official actions for political and even personal gain in ways simply not seen since at least Watergate.

It’s this same sensibility that led to Trump’s first impeachment in 2019, after he suggestively tied Ukraine’s military aid to that country investigating the Bidens ahead of the 2020 election.

But while that and many of Trump’s transactions have relied on implied threats or quid pro quos, he’s increasingly coming out and saying them out loud.

His brazenness was on display on multiple fronts over the last eight days. Last week, he promised American adults thousands of dollars each if they elect Republican majorities in November. This week, he’s repeatedly threatened to abandon or even tear down the Kennedy Center if he’s not allowed to put his name on it.

And on Wednesday night, he jokingly threatened to withhold disaster aid from North Carolina if it elects a Democratic senator (except maybe it’s not a joke, judging by Trump’s track record).

To so openly talk about tying official actions to his political and personal interest should be scandalous. And it was a scandal in Trump’s first term, as evidenced by his impeachment.

His transactionalism is treated as less scandalous today in large part because Americans already know it’s how Trump’s been conducting business for the last 20 months.

But it shouldn’t be lost just how brazen it is now.

At a Wednesday night rally, Trump tied North Carolina getting disaster aid to the state electing Republican Michael Whatley to the Senate — before claiming he was joking.

“You’re waiting for some additional money … and I’m gonna get that to you, Michael,” Trump said. “Now, if Michael loses, I’m not sending it. Okay?”

Then Trump added: “No, I’m only kidding. You’re getting it. You’re gonna get it, Michael.”

But is it really a joke?

An AP investigation this year found that blue states had to wait longer for disaster aid and were denied more frequently. (The White House told the AP “there is no politicization to the President’s decisions on disaster relief.”) And the Energy Department in a July 15 legal filing explicitly acknowledged that it canceled clean-energy grants “based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state” — i.e. whether it “was in a Blue State or a non-Blue State.”

It’s hard to see how people still recovering from Hurricane Helene don’t take this threat somewhat seriously. And regardless of how Trump meant it, this is not really a laughing matter.

The other development this week is Trump’s increasingly blunt effort to force the Kennedy Center to take his name. He’s been repeatedly denied in court, so he’s getting more open about his threats.

Trump said on social media Tuesday that renovations “cannot begin until such time as the DC Circuit rules on the Board’s approved name.”

“If the ruling is a negative one … the Reconstruction and the Renovation of The Kennedy Center will not take place,” he added.

Then Trump said it again on Wednesday.

“For me to get involved and to take that on long-term and to carry it or to raise money to carry it — I think that the Trump administration should certainly have recognition,” he told reporters in Charlotte. “Because frankly, if we don’t do that, it’s going to close. It’ll end up being ripped down.”

Trump was then pictured on Air Force One on Wednesday night reviewing a poster that appeared to say “Kennedy Center DEMOLISHED.”

So this is a president now explicitly saying he needs personal recognition to save this institution — and unsubtly threatening its demise if he doesn’t get what he wants.

Trump’s $5,000 checks idea might be the most brazen.

At the Republican midterm convention last week, Trump said that if Americans reelect GOP congressional majorities, “I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for $5,000.”

It would be one thing to say that electing Republican majorities would enable the party to pass cut taxes, or something like that. But Trump is expressly tying handing out large sums of cash to people — apparently without congressional approval — as a reward for giving him what he wants.

Even some on the right have labeled that a bribe. It certainly seems like a quid pro quo — a payment made in exchange for a specific outcome.

And imagine if that became the new normal. The only thing stopping presidents from paying ever-larger sums of money for votes might be the economic consequences of doing so.

There is evidence that the American people see through what Trump is doing.

A Reuters-Ipsos poll this week showed 66% of registered voters said that Trump’s promise to hand out $5,000 checks if the GOP wins the midterms was “inappropriate,” compared to just 18% who said it was appropriate.

Even Republicans leaned toward it being inappropriate, 37%-33%.

And while voters previously tended to view both parties as about equally corrupt, some recent surveys suggest the GOP is suddenly at a deficit on this issue.

A New York Times-Siena College poll this week showed likely voters said by 14 points that “corrupt” described Republicans more than Democrats. And a Fox News poll showed registered voters said Democrats would do a better job on issues of corruption by 11 points.

But Trump doesn’t seem to have much regard for this perception. He and his deferential GOP congressional allies have made the presidency too powerful not to squeeze all the juice out of it that he can.

And he’ll apparently just keep squeezing.