Devin Stone
Role at the time: Attorney and host of LegalEagle
Response to this claim
Even if Trump identifies a funding source for the $5,000 pledge, disbursing it without a congressional appropriation would violate Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, which bars drawing money from the Treasury except by appropriations made by law.
“There's a difference between saying, "I will enact a policy that will benefit voters financially" and "I will give you an individual voter money for your vote." ... legally speaking, it just isn't [bribery]. ... Article one of the Constitution says that no money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law. It is flatly illegal for the president to use government revenues without permission from Congress.”
LegalEagle host Devin Stone's legal-analysis video on Trump's $5,000 election-conditioned dividend pledge, published September 16, 2026. Walks through 18 U.S.C. § 597 and Brown v. Hartlage (1982) to argue the pledge is not criminal vote-buying, then separately argues that disbursing the money without a congressional appropriation would violate Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution.
Why we used this label
Stone rejects the specific legal characterization of the pledge as criminal vote-buying/bribery under 18 U.S.C. § 597, distinguishing it from an individual bribe under Brown v. Hartlage — a position that pushes back on statements elsewhere in this case (e.g. Schumer, Tim Miller) framing it as bribery. But he does not defend or excuse the pledge overall: he separately asserts it would be unconstitutional to actually pay it out without a congressional appropriation, regardless of funding source. The response combines a rejection of one legal theory with the assertion of a different legal violation, which is a materially mixed position rather than a simple defense or condemnation.