Are we getting stimulus checks in June? Update on 2025 Trump stimulus
Stimulus checks have been a huge topic for discussion for Americans over the last few months.
The opportunities to claim or file for the first stimulus payment (issued in March and April 2020) or the second stimulus check (issued by Jan. 15, 2021) or the third stimulus check (issued between March and December 2021) have now passed.
The deadline to file for the third and last stimulus check was April 15, 2025; it marked a three-year deadline to claim any tax refunds or in this case, the $1,400 Recovery Rebate Credit for 2021.
Even if you received a tax extension, you still needed to file your 2021 tax return by the April 15, 2025 deadline to claim that third stimulus check. There are no extensions or appeals available for missed deadlines, and any unclaimed stimulus payments become the property of the U.S. Treasury.
While speculation about a fourth stimulus check of $2,000 has surfaced on social media and unverified websites, there has been no official confirmation from Congress or the IRS to support this claim and any such news should be taken with caution as it could be misinformation or attempted fraud.
For months, there was a lot of talk about another round of stimulus checks sourced from funds billionaire Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency had freed up through workforce reduction and other cost-saving measures.
However, Musk announced last month he's leaving DOGE and will focus on his businesses.
The Department of Government Efficiency website cites an estimated $175 billion — approximately $1,087 per individual federal taxpayer — in savings through their cuts and reductions in government spending and proof in their "Wall of Receipts." However, only $70 billion is itemized thus far, raising doubts about accuracy.
Investopedia defines a dividend as "the percentage of a company's earnings that is paid to its shareholders as their share of the profits." They add that dividends are generally paid quarterly, with the amount decided by the board of directors based on the company's most recent earnings.
As for stimulus checks, they are money sent to taxpayers by the federal government, usually in an attempt to stimulate the economy by providing people with some spending money.
The DOGE stimulus checks, or sometimes referred to as "DOGE Dividends," would give taxpayers up to $5,000 back, which would come from the claimed savings that the Department of Government Efficiency accrues on the path to its savings goal of $2 trillion, President Donald Trump said in February.
According to USA TODAY, James Fishback, CEO of the investment firm, Azoria, first pitched the "DOGE dividend" concept back in February, saying on X that it would be "a tax refund check sent to every taxpayer, funded exclusively with a portion of the total savings delivered by DOGE."
In response to Fishback's idea, which he developed a proposal for, Musk said, "Will check with the President."
According to Fishback's proposal, the tax refund checks would be sent out after the expiration of DOGE in July 2026.
"American taxpayers deserve a 'DOGE Dividend': 20% of the money that DOGE saves should be sent back to hard-working Americans as a tax refund check. It was their money in the first place," Fishback said in a separate X post. "At $2 trillion in DOGE savings and 78 million tax-paying households, this is a $5,000 refund per household, with the remaining used to pay down the national debt."
In February, Trump said he would consider the plan to pay out $5,000 stimulus checks to taxpayers in the form of a 'DOGE dividend' during a summit in Miami. He explained it as using part of the 20% of the savings identified by Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and giving it back to taxpayers
As of June 2025, there has been no actual indication that DOGE will be issuing a stimulus check to taxpayers; nor have any stimulus checks from DOGE savings been formally approved by Congress.
While stimulus checks might not happen anytime soon, some Floridians can still expect to see their tax return this month.
If you filed your federal taxes electronically and included your banking information, then you may expect a direct deposit within 21 days. If you did not include banking information, then you may expect a paper check refund via the mail within 6-8 weeks.
Submitting your return is not the same as the IRS accepting your return. Once it is accepted, you will know it has if you see a "Refund Sent" alert when you check your tax return status online, at which point you won't have to wait too long for the funds to show up in your account.
Once the IRS approves your refund, it could hit your bank account within days via the direct deposit option.
The IRS has an online tool called "Where's My Refund" that allows you to check on the status of your refund. Click here.
This article originally appeared on Florida Times-Union: Stimulus checks 2025: Will Floridians see a check coming in June?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
‘Big beautiful' AI rule means feds must act NOW to stop Big Tech's abuses
Deep within President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act — the major spending legislation he wants to see by July 4 — is a rule that holds enormous implications for the rapidly developing artificial intelligence sector. The Senate is debating a provision that would prevent state governments from regulating the AI industry for years. Supporters claim this moratorium would stop a patchwork of conflicting state laws from slowing AI's rocketing development. But without subsequent federal action, a moratorium on state regulation risks making the AI industry a law-free zone, where Big Tech companies can essentially do whatever they want with an untested, sometimes exploitative new technology. We've needed federal regulation on AI companies for some time, but if this new moratorium passes, it will become even more urgent for Congress to act. If the AI industry is going to grow sustainably and responsibly, we need legislation to provide guardrails and clear rules about how to protect the creators of content that AI tools use — publishers, authors, journalists, artists, musicians and creatives of all types. Right now, those content creators are AI's victims. Big Tech and AI companies scrape vast amounts of content to build and operate their generative AI products, which turn content into GenAI outputs for users. Sometimes they just reproduce content creators' passages word for word — without credit or compensation. AI companies admit these unfair and un-American tactics are fundamental to their businesses, but they refuse to pay because it's cheaper to steal. Even worse, this predatory behavior lets AI models act as information gatekeepers. If Big Tech is left to its own devices, Americans will have less access to accurate information, and certainly no one to hold accountable for errors and mistakes. Reporting on stories that Americans need to know will dwindle as the AI companies undermine the business models of publishers, opening the door to viewpoint suppression and creating opportunities for foreign propagandists. How dire these problems will become is a matter of guesswork — because AI development is currently a black box. Developers do not share information on whether or how they are obtaining consent for using publisher content. (News reports suggest that when they do share information about these methods, it is sometimes misleading.) Publishers must hire experts to reverse-engineer how their content has been taken, a costly process that overburdens small publishers and can't always identify all works that were used in training the models. This lack of transparency hinders the enforcement of intellectual property rights and distorts regulatory decisions, business development and more. Federal legislation could address these issues by requiring recordkeeping and full disclosure. AI companies must let publishers know whether a generative AI model was trained on their work — and must also explain whether certain publications have been specifically excluded from AI models, so that the public can judge any bias. Further, AI companies must disclose the sources they use to keep their models' responses current. Start your day with all you need to know Morning Report delivers the latest news, videos, photos and more. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters Simple rules such as these will prompt commercial GenAI developers to enter agreements with publishers to use their content — agreements that will likely block AI companies and foreign actors from distorting the news that the public receives. The benefits will be widespread. These rules would strengthen America's position in the AI race by making its products more trustworthy and preserving the journalism that lies at its foundation. Protecting intellectual property and homegrown content is what gives American AI companies an international competitive edge. Strong federal rules will also keep many small media businesses viable, and protecting thousands of workers and their communities. The White House blueprint for AI wisely recognizes that AI development must be responsible and aligned with American values, including respect for intellectual property and the rule of law. If Congress is going to act, as it appears it might, to limit the ability of states to enact these important regulations, then it's up to the House and Senate to fill that gap — and set this growing but potentially dangerous industry on a solid foundation. Danielle Coffey is president and CEO of the News/Media Alliance, which represents more than 2,200 publishers nationwide.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Karoline Leavitt accuses CNN of ‘encouraging violence' against ICE agents with new tracking app
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt suggested on Monday that CNN was guilty of inciting and 'encouraging violence' for its reporting on ICEBlock, a new app that tracks and alerts users to the whereabouts of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers. Daily Wire reporter Mary Margaret Olohan asked Leavitt to respond to the CNN report, considering there has been a 500% increase in assaults against ICE agents, according to recent DHS reports. Leavitt said she would need to see the segment herself but condemned CNN for airing it nevertheless. Advertisement 'Surely, it sounds like this would be an incitement of further violence against our ICE officers,' Leavitt said. 'As you know, as you stated, there's been a 500% increase in violence against ICE agents, law enforcement officers across the country who are just simply trying to do their jobs and remove public safety threats from our communities.' 4 Leavitt said she would need to see the segment herself but condemned CNN for airing it nevertheless. Getty Images She continued, 'And that's something we as Americans, including journalists at CNN, who live in many of these cities where illegal aliens are hiding and were let in from the previous administration, should be very grateful for. So we haven't seen the clip. We'll take a look at it, but certainly it's unacceptable that a major network would promote such an app that is encouraging violence against law enforcement officers who are trying to keep our country safe.' A CNN spokesperson defended the network's reporting. Advertisement 'CNN reported on a publicly available app, which is generating attention across the United States, and reached out to ICE for comment prior to publication. After CNN published its reporting, ICE posted a response, which is now included in the story,' the spokesperson told Fox News Digital. 4 'Surely, it sounds like this would be an incitement of further violence against our ICE officers,' Leavitt said. AFP via Getty Images 4 The response came from ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons, who said ICEBlock 'basically paints a target on federal law enforcement officers' backs.' AFP via Getty Images The response reported by CNN came from ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons, who said ICEBlock 'basically paints a target on federal law enforcement officers' backs' and that 'officers and agents are already facing a 500% increase in assaults.' Advertisement The CNN reported on and aired segments on their channel featuring an interview with the app's creator, Joshua Aaron, who said he was inspired to create ICEBlock as a way to fight back against deportation efforts which he claimed were reminiscent of Nazi Germany. 'We're literally watching history repeat itself,' Aaron said. 4 'After CNN published its reporting, ICE posted a response, which is now included in the story,' the spokesperson told Fox News Digital. He admitted that there is no way to verify every report but promoted 'safeguards' to prevent users from 'spamming' the app, such as deleting sightings every four hours, limiting reports to a five-mile radius and restricting report sightings to one every five minutes. Users on the app are anonymous. Advertisement Aaron added that the app contains a warning to not interact with law enforcement since his goal is not to incite violence. 'Please note that the use of this app is for information and notification purposes only. It is not to be used for the purposes of inciting violence or interfering with law enforcement,' the warning read.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump administration sues Los Angeles in latest attack on sanctuary cities
President Donald Trump escalated his war against sanctuary policies on Monday in a lawsuit blaming alleged 'rioting, looting and vandalism' in Los Angeles on the city's refusal to allow its police to enforce immigration law or cooperate with federal agents. The suit comes two months after a judge barred Trump's administration from denying federal funds to sanctuary cities, and five years after the Supreme Court rejected Trump's challenge to California's sanctuary law. 'The United States is currently facing a crisis of illegal immigration,' Trump's Justice Department said in its lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court. 'But its efforts to address the crisis are hindered by Sanctuary Cities such as the City of Los Angeles, which refuse to cooperate or share information' with immigration agents. 'Sanctuary policies were the driving force of the violence, chaos, and attacks on law enforcement that Americans recently witnessed in Los Angeles,' Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a statement. But a state official said that as of mid-June, two weeks after Trump's deployment of 4,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles, less than 20% of them were actually in the city. Some of those troops were sent to a rural area of Riverside County, 130 miles away, to raid a suspected marijuana farm. Meanwhile, studies contradict the administration's claims that undocumented immigrants are more dangerous than American citizens. A report last September by the National Institute of Justice, part of the U.S. Justice Department, said data from Texas showed that undocumented immigrants were arrested less than half as often as native-born Americans for crimes of drugs or violence. Similar findings were reached in October in a nationwide study by the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit that supports immigration. And in 2018, during Trump's first term, the National Institutes of Health, part of his administration, said data from all states between 1990 and 2014 'reveal that undocumented immigration does not increase violence.' In an unusual action, six Republican state legislators released a letter they addressed to Trump on Friday urging him to focus immigration enforcement on violent criminals rather than on all undocumented immigrants. 'Immigrants are essential to the fabric of America,' wrote the lawmakers, led by state Sen. Suzette Valladares, R-Santa Clarita (Los Angeles County), and federal agents should try 'to avoid the kinds of sweeping raids that instill fear and disrupt the workplace.' The Trump appointee whose office filed the suit, U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli, is a Riverside Republican known for attention-seeking behavior while serving in the state Assembly from 2022 to 2024. As a legislator, he denounced gun-control advocates as 'fake leftist groups' and unsuccessfully sought to require schools to notify parents whose children identified as transgender. After a bill banning parental notification won approval in the Assembly last year, Essayli accused its supporters of 'fearmongering,' had his microphone cut off by a Democratic floor leader, then banged his fist on the desk, called the leader a 'f---ing liar' and said he 'wasn't prepared to address the Chinese Communist Party house today.' Kevin Johnson, an immigration law professor and former law school dean at UC Davis, called the Trump administration's latest lawsuit 'a publicity measure.' 'There is no evidence that undocumented immigrants commit crimes at rates higher than U.S. citizens,' Johnson told the Chronicle. 'In fact, the data shows the opposite.' 'It was Trump's immigration enforcement in the Los Angeles area that prompted the massive protests, not the fact that Los Angeles was a sanctuary city,' said Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration law professor at Cornell University and author of multiple books on the subject. Trump took control of California's National Guard on June 7, saying its forces were needed to protect federal immigration agents and property from violence in protests against workplace raids. While a federal appeals court has allowed the deployment to continue, California officials are still urging the courts to conclude that the action is both illegal and dangerous. California's 2018 sanctuary law, the first in the nation, prohibits local and state officers from notifying immigration agents of the release dates of undocumented immigrants in their custody and holding them so that they can be picked up for deportation. The law does not apply to immigrants convicted of violent crimes. In a lawsuit by Trump's first administration, the law was upheld in 2018 by U.S. District Judge John Mendez of Sacramento, an appointee of President George W. Bush. 'California's decision not to assist federal immigration enforcement in its endeavors is not an 'obstacle' to that enforcement effort,' Mendez wrote. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his ruling, and the Supreme Court denied review of Trump's appeal in June 2020, with only Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas voting to take up the case. U.S. District Judge William Orrick III of San Francisco cited that case in his ruling April 24 prohibiting the current Trump administration from withholding billions of dollars in federal funding from San Francisco and other local governments with sanctuary policies. As part of that case, multiple Bay Area law enforcement officials submitted declarations with the court detailing how sanctuary policies make things safer for all residents – the opposite of the Trump administration's contention. Sanctuary policies 'create an environment where individuals can be candid and forthcoming with law enforcement, and feel comfortable reporting crimes, serving as witnesses, and assisting with investigations,' San Francisco Sheriff Paul Miyamoto wrote in a declaration. He also said that responding to federal notification requests takes deputies' time away from ensuring the safety of those they're charged with protecting. But while there has been little change in the Supreme Court's membership in the last five years – only Trump's appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to succeed the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg – Yale-Loehr said the judicial climate seems to have changed. 'The Supreme Court has taken up many emergency appeals by the Trump administration this year,' the Cornell law professor said. 'Also, the court is more conservative now than in 2020. So we could see a ruling on sanctuary jurisdictions sometime this year.'
