
Trump Accounts Likely To Be Less Helpful To Latinos Than Promised
Bunch of Dollars
Many view the following proposal as a gift for a good start in life: the federal government will provide a one-time payment of $1,000 to each child born in the U.S. According to the official White House statement, these Trump Accounts 'will afford a generation of children the chance to experience the miracle of compounded growth and set them on a course for prosperity from the very beginning.'
The question before us is whether those accounts, proposed in the One Big Beautiful Bill, can serve as a tool to reduce the wealth gap and increase the chances of individual economic success. Looking at these accounts through a Latino lens reveals that, as in most things, the details matter.
The Trump Accounts And Latinos
To qualify, a child must be a U.S. citizen and have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or a lawful resident with a valid Social Security number who pays taxes. If the parent is married, the spouse also needs a Social Security number. This excludes children with even one undocumented parent, those living with a grandparent on a small retirement income who doesn't need to file taxes, or children raised by relatives or family friends who are neither legal guardians nor adoptive parents and can't claim them as dependents. In short, it makes many children in the most vulnerable social and economic situations ineligible. A Latina mom, who asked to stay anonymous for privacy, said, 'Why are they hurting kids who have done nothing wrong? Why is it the kids' fault if parents are undocumented? Maybe the kid they won't help could have cured cancer.'
A $1,000 initial deposit is a good start. However, to truly set a child on a path toward financial success, the Trump Account would need to grow significantly more than what a single $1,000 deposit can generate. Over 18 years, according to basic compound interest principles, the amount produced by the initial deposit is likely to be less than $5,000 before taxes are applied. The Tax Law Center at New York University's College of Law notes that '{T}he benefits offered by these accounts are modest.'
Given the economic conditions of many Latino families, their children are likely to receive significantly less money than what is needed to start their journey toward prosperity. A Latino parent, who did not provide their name for privacy reasons, asked, 'Why not give more to people who need it? Why give it to people who do not need it? This is the government pretending to help working people, but they don't really help us.'
Options For Growing A Trump Account Are Out Of Reach For Many Latinos
U.S. Gold Coins
Once a Trump Account is opened, families can deposit up to $5,000 annually, adjusted for inflation, until the child reaches the age of 18. Investing $5,000 each year at a 7% annual return will grow the value of the Trump Account to $173,375 by the time the child turns 18. That is a significant amount—enough to cover many college expenses, make a sizable down payment on a first home, or fund an entrepreneurial venture, all of which qualify as allowable expenses.
This means that to give children the best chance at reaching economic prosperity, a family would need to deposit about $416 each month into each of their children's accounts for 18 years. However, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's latest American Community Survey, the median household income for a Latino family is $69,869, which is roughly $5,740 per month before taxes, making such a yearly deposit likely unaffordable. As a result, many Latinos who need this support to increase the likelihood that their children will achieve economic prosperity probably won't benefit from the Trump Accounts. A Latino parent who wished to remain anonymous to protect their privacy added, 'Everyone who benefits is the people with money. The $1,000 is no good unless you can add more to it. I can barely pay my bills. I have no retirement, I want more for my kids, but how can I put away money for their education when I have to pay rent?'
Another factor to consider regarding the usefulness of Trump Accounts in helping young Latinos, in particular, achieve economic prosperity is the tax liability associated with these accounts. Few would refuse $1,000 to open a savings account for their child. Nonetheless, because withdrawals from a Trump Account are limited and taxed at federal, state, and local levels, it's essential to recognize that, in addition to regular contributions, there must be ways to offset the tax burden to maximize the benefit of such an initial cash infusion. The non-partisan Urban Institute notes, 'parents with lower incomes would be better off using traditional investment vehicles to save for their child's future.'
Any contributions to the Trump Accounts are made with after-tax dollars. Meanwhile, withdrawals from the Trump Account for approved expenses, such as costs related to first-time homeownership or higher education, are taxed at a long-term capital gains rate. In other words, the amount of money people believe is in the account—whether the total is based solely on the initial $1,000 deposit or on additional contributions—will be less than the actual balance. Additionally, these withdrawals could be subject to state and local taxes.
There is a further complication. It is associated with investment requirements, including the requirement that all funds in a Trump Account must be invested in a high-risk portfolio of corporate equities, making safe, short-term investment strategies impossible. The knowledge about investments and taxes that parents need to understand to navigate the complexities of investments generally, and Trump Accounts specifically, puts Latino children at a significant disadvantage. Access to knowledgeable and trusted financial advisers—often necessary for making informed decisions—requires substantial financial resources and expertise. Among racial and ethnic groups, Latinos have the lowest rates of college completion and per capita income, both of which hinder their ability to access sound financial advice that would help them evaluate options and choose the best course of action for their children. A Latina mother of three, who chose to remain anonymous to protect her privacy, said, 'Investing is hard and it's complicated. Why not set up something local that we can trust, will teach us how to invest, and really help our kids?' She added, 'When I heard it was taxed, I knew it would not help us. The promise of helping kids whose parents work hard but don't make a lot of money is not a real promise.'
The Trump Accounts And The Latino Wealth Gap
The Latino wealth gap is significant and persistent. A young Latina mother, who did not give her name to protect her privacy, said, 'We all want what everybody wants, a chance for our kids to do better. Why won't people in charge help us give our kids what their kids have?' She went on to say, 'I don't want nothing for free. I just want a chance for my kids to live well and be good to others.'
The Trump Accounts are unlikely to significantly reduce the Latino wealth gap. In 2010, economists Darrick Hamilton and William Darity Jr. proposed Baby Bonds as a policy to address the racial wealth divide. However, the high initial costs and the difficulty of deciding who qualifies for the Bonds and how much to provide have made it politically challenging. The Trump Accounts are a scaled-down version of Baby Bonds.
Options For The Trump Accounts To Help Latinos
Suppose the Trump administration, along with congressional and state officials, academics, business leaders, and community leaders, work together with a shared commitment to significantly greater economic equity than we currently have. In that case, there is an opportunity to develop and implement policies that could help place children, regardless of their parents' economic situation, on a path to economic prosperity.
This can be achieved in various ways, including combining two strategies for economic success. First, establish programs and policies, such as Baby Bonds, that make substantial public investments in children, significantly increasing the chances that children from families and communities with limited economic opportunities can be securely positioned on a path toward economic success. The second is to make access to higher education, homeownership, or starting a business more accessible and affordable for those who have historically faced, and continue to face, barriers to equitable access and potential economic success.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Flirts With Female Reporter: Wish More Were ‘Like You'
President Donald Trump joked that his political career could end after he told a female reporter she was beautiful and wished there were more reporters like her. The awkward scene took place in the Oval Office on Friday as a peace deal facilitated by the U.S. was signed by the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, with the aim of ending the decades-long, deadly fighting in eastern Congo. As the signing ceremony began, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt invited reporter and 'friend' Hariana Veras to address the press and attendees in the room, including Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and the foreign ministers from the two African nations. Veras, a native of the Democratic Republic of the Congo who covers the White House, told Trump what she had seen on the ground in the DRC upon news of the peace agreement. 'I saw hope. They have hope now for a better day in Congo,' she said, adding that Congo's President Felix Tshiseked wanted to nominate Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize. Trump to an African reporter: "She's beautiful ... you are beautiful and you're beautiful inside. I wish I had more reporters like you." — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 27, 2025 'So beautifully stated,' Trump replied, before telling Veras she was also 'beautiful'. 'I'm not allowed to say that,' he joked. 'You know that could be the end of my political career, but you are beautiful—and you're beautiful inside. I wish I had more reporters like you.' The lighthearted scene came during an otherwise serious signing ceremony to mark an agreement between Rwanda and the DRC after decades of bloodshed. The deal has been touted as an important step toward peace in the Central African nation of Congo, where conflict with more than 100 armed groups has killed millions of people since the 1990s. The conflict has sparked a humanitarian crisis and widespread displacement in eastern DRC, where a militia allegedly backed by Rwanda occupies large pieces of land. 'So we're here today to celebrate a glorious triumph, and that's what it is, for the cause of peace,' said Trump, who noted that he would be 'putting a lot of pressure' on both sides to honor the agreement. 'This is a long time waiting. The signing of a historic peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Republic of Rwanda. The conflict has continued, and it's been going on for many, many years.' The deal has been dubbed the Washington Accord—although Trump joked that it should have been called the 'Trump Accord.' Under the agreement, the U.S. will also get access to the DRC's deposits of metals and minerals, such as gold, lithium, and copper. Trump took credit on Friday not just for the Washington Accord, but also for his role in other foreign conflicts. 'In a few short months, we've now achieved peace between India and Pakistan, India and Iran, and the DRC and Rwanda, and a couple of others, also,' he said.


Fox News
27 minutes ago
- Fox News
Prosecutors tied to Jan. 6 Capitol riot cases fired by Justice Department: reports
The Justice Department, under Attorney General Pam Bondi, has abruptly fired at least three federal prosecutors involved in cases stemming from the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, according to multiple reports. Among those dismissed were two supervisory attorneys who oversaw Capitol riot prosecutions in the U.S. attorney's office in Washington, D.C., and a line prosecutor directly involved in trying several related cases, according to the Associated Press, citing sources familiar with the matter. NBC News is also reported to have independently confirmed the firings. The prosecutors received termination letters signed by Bondi. According to both outlets, the letters provided no specific reason for the removals, citing only "Article II of the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States." That phrase is often used in federal employment law to indicate the executive branch's constitutional authority to appoint or remove personnel. Fox News Digital contacted the Justice Department for confirmation and comment but did not immediately receive a response. President Trump has repeatedly referred to the Jan. 6 defendants as political prisoners. On his first day back in the White House in January 2025, he pardoned or commuted the sentences of approximately 1,500 individuals who had been convicted or were incarcerated in connection with the Capitol attack. The latest terminations follow a broader reshuffling of senior DOJ personnel. In January, the department dismissed more than a dozen officials who had worked on Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigations into Trump. Then–Acting Attorney General James McHenry justified the removals by stating those individuals could not be trusted to "faithfully implement the president's agenda." During his time as interim U.S. attorney in Washington, Ed Martin also demoted several prosecutors in the Capitol Siege Section, including two attorneys who had helped secure seditious conspiracy convictions against Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes and Proud Boys chairman Enrique Tarrio. In February, Attorney General Bondi ordered a review of the federal prosecution of Donald Trump and launched a broad internal audit aimed at "realigning the Justice Department's priorities" in line with the White House agenda. That effort included the creation of a "weaponization working group" tasked with examining perceived "politicized justice" across federal law enforcement. The group is also reportedly reviewing the actions of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and New York Attorney General Letitia James, who brought civil and criminal cases against Trump and his family.


San Francisco Chronicle
32 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Democrats wrestle with how to conduct oversight as Trump officials crack down
WASHINGTON (AP) — Just hours after she pleaded not guilty to federal charges brought by the Trump administration, New Jersey Rep. LaMonica McIver was surrounded by dozens of supportive Democratic colleagues in the halls of the Capitol. The case, they argued, strikes at the heart of congressional power. 'If they can break LaMonica, they can break the House of Representatives,' said New York Rep. Yvette Clarke, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. Federal prosecutors allege that McIver interfered with law enforcement during a visit with two other House Democrats to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Newark, New Jersey. She calls the charges 'baseless.' It's far from the only clash between congressional Democrats and the Republican administration as officials ramp up deportations of immigrants around the country. Sen. Alex Padilla of California was forcibly removed by federal agents while attempting to speak at a news conference for Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. At least six groups of House Democrats have recently been denied entry to ICE detention centers. In early June, federal agents entered the district office of Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and briefly detained a staffer. Congressional Republicans have largely dismissed Democrats' behavior as inflammatory and inappropriate, and some have publicly supported the prosecution of McIver. Often in the dark about the Trump administration's moves, congressional Democrats are wrestling with how to perform their oversight duties at a time of roiling tensions with the White House and new restrictions on lawmakers visiting federal facilities. 'We have the authority to conduct oversight business, and clearly, House Republicans are not doing that oversight here,' said New Jersey Rep. Rob Menendez, one of the House Democrats who went with McIver to the Newark ICE facility. 'It's our obligation to continue to do it on site at these detention facilities. And even if they don't want us to, we are going to continue to exert our right.' Democrats confront a stark new reality The prospect of facing charges for once routine oversight activity has alarmed many congressional Democrats who never expected to face criminal prosecution as elected officials. Lawmakers in both parties were also unnerved by the recent targeted shootings of two Minnesota lawmakers and the nation's tense political atmosphere. 'It's a moment that calls for personal courage of members of Congress,' said Rep. Summer Lee of Pennsylvania. 'I wish that we had more physical protection. I think that's one of those harsh realities that members of Congress who are not in leadership recognize: that oftentimes, we do this job at our own peril, and we do it anyway.' The arrests and detentions of lawmakers have led some Democrats to take precautionary measures. Several have consulted with the House general counsel about their right to conduct oversight. Multiple lawmakers also sought personal legal counsel, while others have called for a review of congressional rules to provide greater protections. 'The Capitol Police are the security force for members of Congress. We need them to travel with us, to go to facilities and events that the president may have us arrested for,' said Rep. Jonathan Jackson of Illinois. 'There's not a lot of transparency' As the minority party in the House, Democrats lack the subpoena power to force the White House to provide information. That's a problem, they say, because the Trump administration is unusually secretive about its actions. 'There's not a lot of transparency. From day to day, oftentimes, we're learning about what's happening at the same time as the rest of the nation,' said Rep. Lucy McBath, D-Ga., who led a prayer for McIver at the Capitol rally. Democrats, to amplify their concerns, have turned to public letters, confronted officials at congressional hearings and digital and media outreach to try to create public pressure. 'We've been very successful when they come in before committees,' said Rep. Lauren Underwood of Illinois, who added that she believed the public inquiries have 'one hundred percent' resonated with voters. Tapping into the information pipeline Congressional Democrats say they often rely on local lawmakers, business leaders and advocates to be their eyes and ears on the ground. A handful of Democrats say their best sources of information are across the political aisle, since Republicans typically have clearer lines of communication with the White House. 'I know who to call in Houston with the chamber. I think all of us do that,' said Texas Rep. Sylvia Garcia of how business leaders are keeping her updated. Garcia said Democrats 'need to put more pressure' on leading figures in the agriculture, restaurant and hospitality sectors to take their concerns about the immigrant crackdown to Trump's White House. 'They're the ones he'll listen to. They're the ones who can add the pressure. He's not going to listen to me, a Democrat who was an impeachment manager, who is on the bottom of his list, if I'm on it at all,' Garcia said. Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado, for instance, had a working relationship with a for-profit ICE facility in his district until DHS in February ended reports as part of an agency-wide policy change. A member of Crow's staff now regularly goes to the facility and waits, at times for hours, until staff at the Aurora facility respond to detailed questions posed by the office. Democrats say 'real oversight' requires winning elections Still, many House Democrats concede that they can conduct little of their desired oversight until they are back in the majority. Rep. Marc Veasey, D-Texas, said that 'real oversight power and muscle" only comes 'when you have a gavel." 'Nothing else matters. No rousing oratory, no tours, no speeches, no social media or entertainment, none of that stuff," Veasey said. "Because the thing that keeps Trump up at night more than anything else is the idea he's going to lose this House and there'll be real oversight pressure applied to him.'