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

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
Empty money in wallet.

What does it mean to be the working poor? Explore the gap between poverty and a living wage, why millions of working Americans struggle, and solutions to reduce economic inequality.

photobyphotoboy/Getty Images

The Concept of the “Working Poor” Should Be Unacceptable

What does the phrase "working poor" mean? The first point is that you are working; you have a regular job—you aren't working catch as catch can; you are employed. But despite working, you are poor. What does it mean to be poor? It turns out that "poor” means different things depending on what standard you apply.

Some definitions seem rooted in the old institution of the poorhouse, which was a home for paupers. Thus, dictionary.com defines “poor” as having little or no money or other means of support. To me, that’s the definition of being destitute, not poor.

Keep ReadingShow less
Woman holding out an empty wallet at a table.

Many Americans wrongly associate poverty primarily with Black and Hispanic communities. Explore how this misconception influences public opinion, politics, and anti-poverty policy.

skaman306 / Getty Images

More Whites Live in Poverty than Either Blacks or Hispanics - Correcting the Perception of Poverty

From observing people and politicians over the years—I can find no data on this—I have the impression that liberals as well as conservatives think that the typical person living in poverty is Black or Hispanic. The image most Whites have of people of color is someone who is poor—except for celebrities—with little education; they are not aware of many people of color who are middle class. On the other hand, they are not aware of many Whites who are poor and so they think their number is low.

Why is the perception of poverty important? The perception of who is poor has significant impact on the support for government programs that aid the poor. Given the extent of racism in this country, whether subtle or violent, (see my post, “Whether the Issue is Gun Violence or Inequality, It Always Comes Back to Race/Racism”), it’s not surprising that support for anti-poverty programs is non-existent among MAGA Republicans and for that matter has always been weak among Republicans; 45% of Republicans would even cut food stamp support. Their attitude is "it's your fault;" so government has no responsibility to help. They feel the causes of poverty are personal: bad life choices, drugs, lack of work ethic, and the breakdown of families—all negative perceptions of Black culture.

Keep ReadingShow less
Congress at sunset

America's national debt is projected to reach $45 trillion by 2029. Explore Congress's constitutional "Power of the Purse," federal spending, appropriations, and the policies contributing to rising deficits.

Bill Clark/Getty Images

Congress Must Enforce the Power of the Purse as Debt Soars

“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law” (Appropriations Clause, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7, U.S. Constitution). Congress’s “Power of the Purse” means the President cannot spend money or authorize expenditures unless Congress has passed a specific law funding it (Congress.gov).

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the total federal debt held by Americans is on track to hit $40 trillion by the end of 2026. Currently, every resident in America carries a $122,642 share of this debt.

Keep ReadingShow less