image copyrightGetty Images
The names of some Asian countries, including Korea, unexpectedly appeared in U.S. President Donald Trump's $5,000 (about 6.7 million won) dividend plan.
President Trump proposed a plan for a 'dividend of $5,000 per adult' ahead of the November 3 midterm elections, but also stated that he did not want the support money to be spent overseas, such as in Korea, Japan, or China.
The argument is that even if tariff revenues are returned to the people, the money should be used within the U.S. economy.
President Trump mentioned this plan again at a campaign rally in Florida on the 30th of last month and expressed confidence in securing financial resources, saying that the revenue collected through tariffs was sufficient.
If the '5,000 dollar dividend per person' is realized, the total financial need is expected to reach about 1 trillion dollars (about 1,340 trillion won), but President Trump argued, "It is not that big of a sum when you consider that the wealth we created through tariffs and investment attraction is 25 trillion dollars."
Also, on this day, assuming a situation where a couple receives $10,000 together, he emphasized, "You should never say to your spouse, 'We have $10,000, so let's go to China and spend it, or go to Japan, or go to Korea.'"
A similar argument also appeared at a campaign rally in Montana on the 14th of last month.
At the time, President Trump urged people not to use dividends for overseas travel and argued that the economy can only grow if money circulates within the United States.
End of TOP News
The dividend plan has been repeatedly emphasized since it was first unveiled in Dallas, Texas last September, but questions are being raised as to whether it is truly feasible considering payment costs, fiscal deficit, and the impact on prices.
Has the number of American tourists visiting Korea actually increased?
So, are so many Americans coming to Korea that President Trump is worried when he directly mentions ‘Korea’?
In fact, the number of American tourists visiting Korea is steadily increasing.
According to Korean tourism statistics from the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism and the Korea Tourism Organization, the number of Americans who visited Korea from January to September this year was 1,214,075. This is a 10.8% increase from the same period last year.
In particular, the number of American visitors to Korea in the first half of this year was 811,974, an increase of 11.1% compared to the same period last year. In September alone, 134,000 Americans visited Korea, an increase of 10.4% compared to the same month last year.
Additionally, the United States ranked 4th in the number of visitors to Korea by country, following China (5,473,078), Japan (3,118,815), and Taiwan (1,864,368).
Several factors appear to have contributed to the increase in American tourists.
The Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism cited improved accessibility due to the expansion of direct air routes and local marketing using K-content as reasons for the increase in tourists to the Americas.
However, it is difficult to say that the increase in American tourists is directly related to President Trump's mention of Korea. This statement is an example of the policy intention to prevent the economic effects in the United States from leaking out through overseas consumption.
Meanwhile, the total number of foreign tourists visiting Korea is also increasing. The cumulative number of visitors to Korea from January to September this year was 17,110,477, a 21.5% increase over the same period last year.
During the same period, foreign tourists' card spending in the tourism sector amounted to KRW 15.845 trillion, an increase of 46.8% compared to the same period last year. Not only is the number of tourists increasing, but the actual amount of consumption is also expanding.
Is ‘$5,000 per person’ enough financial resources?
The biggest obstacle to Trump's dividend plan is finances.
The recipients of payments proposed by President Trump are approximately 240 million adult U.S. citizens. It is estimated that a total of $1.2 trillion (approximately 1,600 trillion won) would be needed by simple calculation to pay $5,000 per person.
The Trump administration presents tariff revenue as its main source of finance. However, according to an estimate by the U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported by Reuters in September, tariff revenue collected in fiscal year 2026 was about $167 billion. This is only about 14% of the $1.2 trillion needed to pay dividends. This means that a much larger amount of additional financial resources than the current amount will be needed to cover the payments solely from tariff revenues.
Uncertainty in tariff revenue itself is also a variable.
In the tariff-related fiscal outlook released in August, CBO stated that the net tariff revenue forecast for fiscal 2026 was approximately $250 billion lower than the previous February forecast.
In particular, it was influential that approximately $166 billion of customs revenue collected under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) was expected to be refunded. This means that not all of the amount collected through tariffs is net revenue that the government can ultimately use.
In addition to financial resources, it also requires congressional approval.
Under the U.S. Constitution, the power to determine federal spending lies with Congress, so the president cannot independently decide on large-scale cash payments.
Even if the Republican Party controls both the Senate and the House of Representatives, there is a possibility that it will encounter differences within the party or opposition over the financial burden during the process of passing the bill.
However, some say that although 60 votes are needed in the Senate for a general bill, if the Republican Party uses the budget adjustment process, there is a possibility that it can be promoted without the cooperation of the Democratic Party.
In fact, the United States has experience providing direct cash payments to citizens three times during the COVID-19 pandemic. Up to $1,200 per adult was paid in March 2020, up to $600 in December of the same year, and up to $1,400 in March 2021.
According to the Congressional Oversight Committee, a total of 476 million payments were made across the three payments, totaling $814 billion.
However, at the time, there was a clear purpose of providing emergency support to alleviate the economic shock caused by the pandemic. Temporary support to respond to an economic downturn and paying dividends exceeding $1 trillion without any significant economic crisis have different financial contexts.
The economic effect is also a topic of debate.
Cash payments can stimulate consumption by increasing households' disposable income, but if a large amount of money flows into the market at once, demand can outstrip supply, increasing pressure on prices.
In fact, there is an analysis that the cash paid as an economic stimulus package during COVID-19 increased consumption demand and later served as one of the factors that increased inflation.
If dividends are financed by issuing government bonds, the fiscal deficit and government debt may increase and affect government bond interest rates.
Ultimately, if it is difficult to raise financial resources through tariff revenue alone, additional government borrowing or other spending cuts may be necessary.
Compared to Korea’s ‘People’s Livelihood Recovery Consumption Coupon’
image copyrightNEWS1
In Korea, there is also a case where consumption coupons were provided to all citizens to promote consumption and support domestic small business owners.
One of them is that the government paid a total of 13.522 trillion won through the 2025 consumer coupon project to restore people's livelihood.
At the time, the per-person payment was differentiated between 150,000 and 550,000 won depending on income and region of residence, and was provided in the form of credit and check card recharges, prepaid cards, and local love gift certificates.
In addition, it was designed to prevent use in some industries, such as large supermarkets and department stores, and to limit consumption to small business affiliates in the region so that the subsidy would flow into the domestic local economy.
According to the 'Evaluation of the economic effect of consumption coupons for people's livelihood recovery' announced by the Bank of Korea in June, the average monthly sales of those who used consumer coupons increased by 2.91% compared to those who did not use them. Depending on the analysis method, the sales increase effect was estimated at 1.46-3.76%.
Based on credit card payments of 9.1 trillion won, additional sales generated from nationwide users were estimated at about 2.8 trillion won.
An analysis also found that consumption coupons had the effect of increasing the gross domestic product growth rate by about 0.12% in 2025.
However, the effect of boosting consumption did not last long. The Bank of Korea analyzed that the effect of increased sales was concentrated in the first 1 to 2 months of payment.
Although consumption coupons have contributed to increasing households' spending power and boosting small business owners' sales in the short term, this means that in order to have a sustainable growth effect, separate policies are needed to elaborately design usage and support methods and increase the competitiveness of small business owners.
Korea's consumption coupons and President Trump's dividend plan have something in common: promoting consumption by paying money directly to the people, but their scale and purpose are different.
While Korea's consumption coupons are a policy that limits the use of coupons to support domestic small businesses and the local economy, President Trump's dividend is a one-time payment of a much larger amount to all adult U.S. citizens and is intended to prevent consumption from leaking overseas.
In particular, in the case of the United States, how to limit and actually enforce overseas consumption remains a challenge.
However, there is a prevailing view that the Republican Party may lose its majority position in the House of Representatives in this midterm election, and as the Senate is also expected to be a close race, some analyzes suggest that this may end up being a campaign message ahead of the election rather than leading to actual policies.
