The idea of distributing “DOGE Dividend” checks, which would be funded by the savings from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has recently gained popularity. This proposal was initially introduced to DOGE by James Fishback, CEO of Azoria Partners. Fishback revealed that the concept originated from a dream, leading to a formal proposal designed to return approximately $5,000 to each tax-paying household.
Fishback remarked, “American taxpayers are entitled to a ‘DOGE Dividend’: 20% of the funds saved by DOGE should be returned to hardworking Americans as tax rebate checks. It was their money to begin with.”
President Donald Trump has acknowledged that the administration is contemplating the allocation of 20% of the DOGE savings back to citizens. Tesla CEO Elon Musk has also shown interest in this initiative.
Trump stated, “We’re looking into providing 20% of the DOGE savings to American citizens and another 20% towards reducing the national debt,” adding, “I think it’s a great idea. A 20% dividend, if you will, from the money we’re saving by addressing waste, fraud, and abuse, among other issues.”
However, despite the enthusiasm surrounding the proposal, it has faced skepticism from several lawmakers. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., expressed concerns about fiscal responsibility, highlighting the enormous U.S. federal debt, which stands at $36 trillion. He pointed out that while the concept may be politically advantageous, it contradicts conservative values of fiscal responsibility.
Johnson stated, “Politically, this could be great for us; it’s easy to send out checks to everyone,” adding, “But if you reflect on our core principles, fiscal responsibility is fundamental to what we stand for as conservatives. That’s our identity, and we are burdened with a $36 trillion national debt.”
Economists have also voiced concerns regarding the practicality of the DOGE Dividend. UCLA economist Kimberly Clausing criticized the plan for its lack of tangible budgetary savings.
Clausing remarked, “Currently, this dividend is merely a fantasy, as they’ve provided minimal evidence of actual budget savings,” adding, “While their governmental layoffs will likely result in significant disruptions in essential services like forest management, public safety, and tax filing, they will not meaningfully impact the budget deficit, primarily because personnel expenses constitute a small portion of the overall U.S. federal budget.”
Emily Prescott covers U.S. politics & news for content partner Modern Newsstand LLC.
