Howard Lutnick told NBC at the 9/11 Memorial that Trump will drive gas to $2 forever, and gas in California was already at $10 that day

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick made bold claims this week about the administration’s plan to send a $5,000 dividend to American adults, insisting the money would not come from taxpayer funds. Speaking in an interview on Thursday at the National September 11 Memorial and Museum, Lutnick told NBC News that the administration could raise the necessary capital through alternative revenue streams rather than the federal budget. He pointed specifically to a Commerce Department program called the Trump Platinum Card, which allows wealthy individuals to pay $5 million to extend their U.S. visas for 270 days.

Lutnick said more than 100,000 people are already on a waitlist for the program, which he calculated could generate $500 billion. He also pointed to the administration’s past investment in Intel as a second potential source of revenue, noting that the government acquired roughly 500 million shares when the stock was at $20. With the price reaching $100 as of Thursday, Lutnick suggested the government is sitting on a $50 billion gain, though the administration spent $8.9 billion in CHIPS Act funds on that investment and the shares have not been sold, meaning the gain remains on paper.

Other officials have offered different explanations for how the checks would actually be funded. National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett told Bloomberg Television on Friday that the White House might use a reconciliation process in Congress, an approach that would matter given initial estimates placing the plan’s total cost at approximately $1.3 trillion. Vice President JD Vance suggested on Wednesday that the payments could instead be funded through tariff revenues.

The tariff math doesn’t quite add up on its own

The tariff argument has run into skepticism from economists. According to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, even before the Supreme Court ordered hundreds of billions of dollars in tariff revenue to be refunded, tariff collections would not have come close to covering the cost of the dividend program. Tariff collections rose to $264 billion in 2025 following new trade policies, but that figure has since dropped due to ongoing legal challenges, and estimates suggest new tariffs might generate only about $125 billion in net revenue for 2027.

That would cover roughly one-tenth of the cost of a $5,000 dividend for 250 million eligible adults. Beyond the funding debate sits the broader issue of the national debt, which recently surpassed $40 trillion for the first time, while the current annual budget deficit is approaching $1.8 trillion, the highest level since March 2021. Lutnick has said the administration plans to address the debt by targeting waste, fraud, and abuse, though many economists remain doubtful that such efforts would make a meaningful dent.

Economic frustration remains a central theme among voters, with recent polling showing that 52% of people strongly disapprove of how the administration is handling inflation and the cost of living. Despite that, Lutnick gave the economy a letter grade of A minus, and he said the grade would rise to an A plus if the administration managed to drive gas prices down to $2 a gallon.

Lutnick explained that reaching that $2 target would require aggressive moves on global oil production, including increasing output in countries like Venezuela and challenging Iran’s influence in the Middle East, a region already in the news this week over an Iran drone standoff. He described the plan as a generational change that President Trump is actively pursuing, framing it as central to the administration’s broader economic strategy.

The current reality of fuel prices stands in stark contrast to those projections, as the average price of regular gas was $4.29 per gallon on the day of the interview, with parts of California seeing prices hit $10. The August Consumer Price Index also showed a 0.4% rise in inflation from July, and core inflation, which excludes volatile energy and food prices, rose more than economists had anticipated. With midterm elections approaching in November, the administration’s handling of these economic pressures remains a central issue for voters and analysts.