Presidential immunity won’t save Trump from his latest crime: ex-US attorney

U.S. President Donald Trump delivers closing remarks at the Republican National Midterm Convention in Dallas, Texas, U.S., September 10, 2026. REUTERS/Evan Vucci

On Friday, a distinguished legal analyst and former U.S. attorney noted not only that President Donald Trump's latest move breaks the law, but that his much-touted “presidential immunity” won’t be able to save him from consequences. This is according to MS NOW legal expert Barb McQuade, who was responding to a controversial claim Trump made during the Republican midterm convention in Dallas.

On the first day of the convention, Trump promised to send every American adult a $5,000 check if Republicans retain control of the U.S. House and Senate after the midterm elections. "If the Republicans win, you win with us and you get $5,000," Trump declared. "It will be called the Trump dividend." His proposal sparked widespread shock and outrage – including among many Republicans – but the president went on to make the claim again the following day.

“Paying for votes is a crime for the payer and the recipient,” noted McQuade, pointing to U.S. Code 18 USC 597. “With five-year statute of limitations,” she elaborated, “the next DOJ could bring charges. And the conduct would be beyond the scope of presidential immunity for Trump.”

While many have suggested that Trump’s proposal could be considered a bribe, McQuade’s take brings two important details into the conversation. First, the specific legal code itself. Commentators have argued that, based on his previous history of promising payouts then not delivering, Trump will never deliver the checks in any case. This has prompted speculation as to whether Trump’s “dividend” would count as a bribe if it never gets paid out. But the law makes it clear, stating, “Whoever makes or offers to make an expenditure to any person, either to vote or withhold his vote, or to vote for or against any candidate…Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.” The emphasis on “offers to make” was added, because it makes it blatant that Trump’s promise is in itself illegal.

What’s more, because it specifically involves campaigning and not duties performed officially, Trump would not be shielded by the presidential immunity extended to him by the Supreme Court. And with its five-year statute of limitations, should a Democrat win the next presidency, a motivated Justice Department could seek prosecution.

Trump’s promise has sparked pushback from across the political spectrum. National Review senior editor Charles Cooke slammed the idea as “socialism,” calling it “morally, practically, and politically catastrophic.” Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who has been careful to stay in Trump’s good graces, asserted the payouts would “lead to more debt and more inflation.”

From Your Site Articles