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. 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.” Similarly, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith called Trump Accounts “transformational” in a press release.

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 January, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent reported that over a million accounts had already been opened.

Parents (or other friends or family members) can contribute up to $5,000 per year until the child reaches age 18; employers can contribute up to $2,500. 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 the Trump White House 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, 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.


Read More

Trump Frames Economy As ‘Stronger than Ever Before’ in State of the Union, but Lawmakers Question the Claim

President Donald Trump delivered his State of the Union address before a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night.

(Cayla Labgold-Carroll/MNS)

Trump Frames Economy As ‘Stronger than Ever Before’ in State of the Union, but Lawmakers Question the Claim

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump used the longest State of the Union address in U.S. history on Tuesday night to argue that Americans are already experiencing “a turnaround for the ages” thanks to his agenda. But moments of disruption inside the House chamber and reactions from lawmakers afterward suggested Democrats and even some Republicans dispute his claims.

Trump’s address offered a snapshot of how the White House is trying to frame the economy heading into an election year. The administration sought to present easing inflation, falling prices, and rising wages as settled facts.

Keep Reading Show less
U.S. Capitol

A shrinking deficit doesn’t mean fiscal health. CBO projections show rising debt, Social Security insolvency, and trillions added under the 2025 tax law.

Getty Images, Dmitry Vinogradov

The Deficit Mirage

The False Comfort of a Good Headline

A mirage can look real from a distance. The closer you get, the less substance you find. That is increasingly how Washington talks about the federal deficit.

Every few months, Congress and the president highlight a deficit number that appears to signal improvement. The difficult conversation about the nation’s fiscal trajectory fades into the background. But a shrinking deficit is not necessarily a sign of fiscal health. It measures one year’s gap between revenue and spending. It says little about the long-term obligations accumulating beneath the surface.

The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed that the annual deficit narrowed. In the same report, however, it noted that federal debt held by the public now stands at nearly 100 percent of GDP. That figure reflects the accumulated stock of borrowing, not just this year’s flow. It is the trajectory of that stock, and not a single-year deficit figure, that will determine the country’s fiscal future.

What the Deficit Doesn’t Show

The deficit is politically attractive because it is simple and headline-friendly. It appears manageable on paper. Both parties have invoked it selectively for decades, celebrating short-term improvements while downplaying long-term drift. But the deeper fiscal story lies elsewhere.

Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt now account for roughly half of federal outlays, and their share rises automatically each year. These commitments do not pause for election cycles. They grow with demographics, health costs, and compounding interest.

According to the CBO, those three categories will consume 58 cents of every federal dollar by 2035. Social Security’s trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2033, triggering an automatic benefit reduction of roughly 21 percent unless Congress intervenes. Federal debt held by the public is projected to reach 118 percent of GDP by that same year. A favorable monthly deficit report does not alter any of these structural realities. These projections come from the same nonpartisan budget office lawmakers routinely cite when it supports their position.

Keep Reading Show less
A New Democratic Approach: Guardrails That Speed, Not Stop, Progress

A take on permitting reform, deregulation, and DHS accountability—arguing for economic growth with guardrails that protect communities, health, and the environment.

Getty Images, Javier Ghersi

A New Democratic Approach: Guardrails That Speed, Not Stop, Progress

For far too long, our national conversation has been framed around a false choice. On one side, Republicans frequently argue that the best way to strengthen the economy and improve the lives of everyday Americans is to give businesses maximum freedom by having fewer rules, fewer constraints and more incentives to grow. On the other side, Democrats have stressed the need for guardrails to protect our environment, our health, and our communities from the unintended effects of unchecked growth.

But this debate has always been too narrow. It assumes that we must choose between action and accountability, between getting things done and doing them responsibly.

Keep Reading Show less
The Many Victims of Trump’s Immigration Policy–Including the U.S. Economy

Messages of support are posted on the entrance of the Don Julio Mexican restaurant and bar on January 18, 2026 in Forest Lake, Minnesota. The restaurant was reportedly closed because of ICE operations in the area. Residents in some places have organized amid a reported deployment of 3,000 federal agents in the area who have been tasked with rounding up and deporting suspected undocumented immigrants

Getty Images, Scott Olson

The Many Victims of Trump’s Immigration Policy–Including the U.S. Economy

The first year of President Donald Trump’s second term resulted in some of the most profound immigration policy changes in modern history. With illegal border crossings having dropped to their lowest levels in over 50 years, Trump can claim a measure of victory. But it’s a hollow victory, because it’s becoming increasingly clear that his immigration policy is not only damaging families, communities, workplaces, and schools - it is also hurting the economy and adding to still-soaring prices.

Besides the terrifying police state tactics, the most dramatic shift in Trump's immigration policy, compared to his presidential predecessors (including himself in his first term), is who he is targeting. Previously, a large number of the removals came from immigrants who showed up at the border but were turned away and never allowed to enter the country. But with so much success at reducing activity at the border, Trump has switched to prioritizing “internal deportations” – removing illegal immigrants who are already living in the country, many of them for years, with families, careers, jobs, and businesses.

Keep Reading Show less