Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Trump Accounts: Who Benefits From the New Child Savings Accounts?

Opinion

A child putting a coin in a small piggy bank.

An in-depth analysis of Trump Accounts, the child savings program promoted by Donald Trump, examining wealth inequality, government seed money, and economic impact on struggling families.

Getty Images, Natalia Lebedinskaia

The Trump administration has undertaken a public relations blitz for “Trump” accounts over the past month. During the State of the Union address, President Trump asserted that these accounts were “so special, it has taken off and gone through the roof.” A commercial aired during the Super Bowl, promoting these accounts as a way to “jumpstart the American dream.” In late January, Nicki Minaj appeared with President Trump at a summit about Trump Accounts, saying, “Early financial literacy & financial support for our children will give them a major head start in life.”

As an expert on policies that support the economic security of children and families, I have to say – it’s a little more complicated than the hyperbole suggests.


If you’re not familiar with Trump Accounts, these new tax-favored savings accounts for children were recently enacted as part of the 2025 tax and reconciliation bill. According to “trumpaccounts.gov,” parents can open these accounts by filling out a form when they file their taxes or online. In late February, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent reported that about two million accounts have already been opened.

Parents (or other family members or employers) can contribute up to a total of $5,000 per year until the child reaches age 18; governments and nonprofits can also make contributions. The federal government will contribute $1,000 to the accounts of children born between Jan. 1, 2025 and Dec. 31, 2028. Some private individuals–including Nicki Minaj–are pledging to contribute to the accounts of certain children, like those whose birthdates don’t fall within that narrow window.

One big question is how much these accounts would be worth. Some congressional champions and President Trump have asserted that these accounts could be worth over a hundred thousand dollars by the time a child turns 18. But “could” is doing a lot of work in that calculation: to achieve those lofty account balances, parents or other family members have to make the maximum annual contribution of $5,000 every year until the child is 18 (and investment rates of return have to be consistently strong).

This is utterly unrealistic for the many families who are struggling in Trump’s economy. With high grocery bills, increased utility costs, and the skyrocketing cost of child care and health care, many families – especially the families whose kids could most benefit from a healthy nest egg – can barely afford the basics, much less scrape together $5,000 a year, every year, to contribute. This administration’s drastic cuts to nutrition assistance and health care supports and threats to child care and social services funding will make it even harder for families across the country to do so.

Now, if a child only ever receives the $1,000 in government “seed money,” and it produces investment returns of 5.4 percent per year (which is admittedly lower than recent historical returns from the S&P index, which hover around 7 percent), the account would be worth around $2,500 when the child turns 18. $2,500 is nothing to sneeze at. But I’m not sure it provides the jumpstart for the “American dream” that is being advertised. It would not enable someone to buy a house, or attend college, or start a business. It certainly is not going to be the transformational policy that remedies growing wealth inequality, or narrows the persistent wealth gap faced by Black families.

There are ways that Trump Accounts could be improved, if policymakers really wanted to ensure that they live up to their promise for all children, especially those who could benefit the most. But that is precisely why Trump Accounts are so dangerous: the policymakers who enacted the Trump accounts are unlikely to finish what they started. Given that the lawmakers who included the Trump Accounts in the tax and reconciliation bill also made historic cuts to SNAP and Medicaid, along with unprecedented tax giveaways to the wealthiest and a huge boost in funding for ICE, they don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt.

In their intentionally inadequate design, Trump Accounts are not just a fig leaf for the disastrous tax and reconciliation bill, but a Trojan horse that gives away even more wealth to those at the top. They trumpet the transformative power of saving, without providing new resources for the families who can’t afford to do so. Instead, they provide another way for people who already have wealth to spare, to grow and hoard more of the same.

And when these accounts, inevitably, fail to transform the lives of the children who are born into economically disadvantaged families, those who are loudly promoting Trump Accounts now will likely have a simple explanation: it was their parents’ fault, not policymakers’.

Amy K. Matsui, JD, is Vice President for Child Care and Income Security at the National Women’s Law Center, and a Public Voices Fellow of the OpEd Project in Partnership with the National Black Child Development Institute.


Correction: An updated version of this story was posted on 3/3, including updated data and new policy details.


Read More

Woman putting savings in a white piggy bank.

How tax cuts, deregulation and weakened unions helped shift the U.S. from the postwar Great Compression to today’s Great Divide—and examine the Gomory-Baumol corporate tax proposal as an alternative.

Guido Mieth/Getty Images

Affordability Crisis: From The Great Compression to the Great Divide

Trickle-down policies facilitated the transition from the mid-20th century "Great Compression “characterized by low-wage inequality and strong labor unions—to the "Great Divide" by shifting the economic focus from mass purchasing power to capital accumulation through massive tax cuts and deregulation.

The Great Compression

Following World War II, the United States experienced an unprecedented period of economic egalitarianism. Propelled by the G.I. Bill, the rise of powerful labor unions, and a heavily progressive tax code, the income gap between the wealthiest Americans and the working class shrank dramatically.

Keep ReadingShow less
What Does the China–U.S. Trade Truce Mean for American Industry?

USA and China trade relations, cooperation strategy. US America and China flags on chess king on a chessboard.

Getty Images

What Does the China–U.S. Trade Truce Mean for American Industry?

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

What Happened at the May 2026 Trump-Xi Summit?

Keep ReadingShow less
The Populist Left and Right Just Bought the Same Housing Policy
white and red wooden house miniature on brown table

The Populist Left and Right Just Bought the Same Housing Policy

At midnight on July 11, the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act became law without a presidential signature, the largest housing statute since 1990. President Trump refused to sign it, dismissing it as "a big yawn" and holding it hostage to an unrelated voter-identification bill. The timing matters because the price it is meant to address keeps climbing: the median existing home sold for $440,600 in June, roughly 49 percent higher than in 2020. Democrats say Trump snubbed struggling families. Republicans call it a win for homeownership. Both are selling a law that will do far less than either claims.

Start with the provision everyone is talking about. Section 901, titled "Homes are for People, Not Corporations," bars large institutional investors, defined as entities controlling 350 or more single-family homes, from buying additional single-family houses. It is the populist centerpiece, the line that lets a Republican Congress and a Democratic minority both claim they stood up to private equity.

Keep ReadingShow less
Person holds a check from the U.S. Treasury Department.

As America debates Social Security and federal spending, older adults face rising costs and financial insecurity. Here's why retirement policy affects every generation.

MargJohnsonVA/Getty Images

We Will All Grow Old Someday

America is debating budgets, taxes, deficits, and spending priorities. Those discussions are necessary. But amid the political arguments, we cannot lose sight of a simple truth: every budget reflects our values.

Nearly every American hopes to grow old. Yet growing old with dignity has become increasingly difficult for many seniors living on fixed incomes. Rising housing costs, groceries, utilities, insurance premiums, and prescription drug expenses continue to strain household budgets. For many older adults, retirement is no longer a season of security but one of constant financial calculation.

Keep ReadingShow less