
What Parents Should Know About the $1,000 ‘Trump Accounts' for Babies
'This is a pro-family initiative that will help millions of Americans harness the strength of our economy to lift up the next generation, and they'll really be getting a big jump on life,' Trump said at a roundtable at the White House with top business executives.
Dubbed 'Trump Accounts' by the Administration, the proposal is a provision in Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' the sweeping tax and spending package now making its way through Congress. The bill passed the House with the provision included, but the package has faced resistance in the Senate.
If the legislation passes, the proposed program would create accounts for children born as early as the beginning of this year.
Here's what parents should know about the program.
What are 'Trump Accounts'?
The 'Trump Accounts' created for newborns under the program would be tax-deferred investment accounts privately held by children's guardians.
The government would make a one-time contribution of $1,000 to each account, according to the White House. The accounts would then 'track a stock index and allow for additional private contributions of up to $5,000 per year,' the White House said.
The program '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 White House said.
Who would be eligible?
The accounts would be available for children born in the country after Dec. 31, 2024 and before Jan. 1, 2029.
In order to open an account, at least one of the child's parents or guardians would need to have a Social Security number with the authorization to work in the U.S., The Washington Post reported.
How would withdrawing the money work?
At the age of 18, the child would be able to withdraw up to half of the money in the account, according to Forbes. When they turn 25, they would be able to access the full account balance for certain purposes, such as small business loans and higher education. Only when the account beneficiary turns 30 would they gain full control of all the funds for any purpose.
The Milken Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank, estimated in a report released in March that an initial government grant of $1,000 invested in a broad-based equity index fund of U.S. companies would, on average, grow to $8,000 after 20 years, $69,000 after 40 years, and $574,000 after 60 years.
How much would the program cost?
Lawmakers have not shared a projected cost for Trump Accounts. But the Post estimated that, since there are roughly 3.6 million babies born in the country each year, the cost of the program could be greater than $3 billion a year.
What would the impact of the program be?
Some economists and policy experts have expressed concern that the program could exacerbate economic inequality.
Trump Accounts are similar to 'baby bond' programs that operate in California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. But those state programs were intended to minimize the wealth gap by offering support for children from low-income households, whereas the Trump program would be available to people regardless of their socioeconomic status. As a result, experts have noted that families from higher income households would be able to contribute more to the account, on top of the initial $1,000, and therefore have more funds accumulated in the account.
Some financial experts have also voiced skepticism of the program, saying the benefits are small compared to other tax-shielded savings options, such as 529 college savings accounts.
Others have pointed out that the proposal is coming at the same time that Republican lawmakers are proposing significant cuts to social safety net programs, such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
'Feel like low-income families would prefer their assistance buying groceries not get cut, but that's just me,' Brendan Duke—the senior director for federal budget policy at the nonpartisan research and policy institute, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities— said in a post on X, in response to a post about Trump Accounts.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hamilton Spectator
a minute ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Premiers entering final day of meetings with public safety, internal trade on agenda
Canada's premiers are set to meet for the third and final day of their gathering in Ontario's cottage country, with internal trade, public safety and health care on the agenda. The premiers met with Prime Minister Mark Carney in Huntsville, Ont., on Tuesday to discuss the ongoing trade war with U.S. President Donald Trump after meeting with First Nation leaders the previous day. The prime minister and the premiers presented a united front in the face of U.S. tariffs, but revealed little about the negotiations with an Aug. 1 deadline in trade talks fast approaching. The prime minister and the premiers all downplayed the importance of getting a deal done soon to avoid further U.S. tariffs, saying they want the best deal possible regardless of timing. A number of provinces also signed several free trade deals to open up internal trade while others committed to building pipelines to get oil and gas to new markets. The premiers are set to hold a closing press conference this afternoon. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 23, 2025.


Politico
2 minutes ago
- Politico
House Dems Find Their Mojo With the Epstein Saga
In the middle is Trump, who once had a well-documented friendship with Epstein and who has been referenced in court documents surrounding the now deceased financier — though who is not accused of wrongdoing in connection with Epstein. Trump has tried to smother the controversy, even scolding his supporters for obsessing. 'Everyone's always talking about Trump being 'Teflon' — obviously that's because all Hill Republicans are pretty much a suit of armor for him, right? But in this instance, they're not,' said a senior Democratic aide discussing the strategy. 'And so it exposes him, I think, to more attacks that otherwise would be brushed off — and makes it easier for us to drag his numbers down while creating chaos among the Republicans.' The most interesting part about the strategy is how organically it came together. After watching the MAGA-sphere melt down over the administration's announcement in early July that there was no 'client list,' Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) grabbed the issue, telling his colleagues that the matter was kryptonite for the GOP, according to people close to him. In the House Rules Committee, ranking Democrat Jim McGovern of Massachusetts and his team had similarly been watching the feeding frenzy with right-wing podcasters and influencers, sensing an opportunity to needle Republicans so clearly out of step with their own base. Khanna found an unexpected ally in libertarian gadfly Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), teaming up to launch a discharge petition that could let House members circumvent Johnson's attempt to keep the issue from a vote on the floor. Through it all, Democratic leaders were cheering on their members. Beyond giving Khanna tacit support to work with Massie, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries set the tone for members early last week. He insisted in press conferences and in private meetings that this issue was a lose-lose situation for Republicans: either Trump and his allies had been lying for years about what was in those files or they were right and were now hiding evidence to protect their cronies. For longtime Hill watchers like myself, Jeffries' embrace of the scandal was a surprise. As Axios wrote last week, Jeffries has been known for an 'often taciturn approach to salacious stories of the day, preferring to remain disciplined and on-message in his public communications.' But like his members, Jeffries sensed the Epstein scandal was different, insisting it could feed into a narrative of corruption that would resonate beyond just the Democratic base.


UPI
3 minutes ago
- UPI
DOJ fires newly appointed N.J. district attorney amid Trump attack on judiciary system
Alina Habba, President Donald Trump's former defense lawyer, speaks after being sworn in as U.S. Attorney for New Jersey in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C. on Friday, March 28, 2025. On Tuesday, Attorney General Pam Bondi fired Desiree Leigh Grace as the newly appointed District Attorney for New Jersey because a panel of New Jersey judges selected her over Habba. File Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo July 23 (UPI) -- Attorney General Pam Bondi has fired newly appointed U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey Desiree Leigh Grace, as the Trump administration continues to attack the independence of the U.S. judiciary system. Bondi announced that Grace had been fired hours after a panel of New Jersey judges voted to appoint her as the state's district attorney over President Donald Trump's pick for the position, Alina Habba. Habba, a former personal attorney to the president, was appointed acting U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey by Trump in March. Grace had been serving as her first assistant. Habba "has been doing a great job in making NJ safe again. Nonetheless, politically minded judges refused to allow her to continue in her position, replacing Alina with the First Assistant. Accordingly, the First Assistant United States Attorney in New Jersey has been removed," Bondi said in a statement Tuesday. "This Department of Justice does not tolerate rogue judges -- especially when they threaten the President's core Article II powers." The Trump administration has come under staunch criticism from the legal profession over its actions that threaten the judiciary and its independence. Since returning to office in January, Trump has threatened to impeach judges who rule against him, sanctioned law firms and lawyers linked to his political adversaries and has ignored or defied rulings he disagrees with. The firing of Grace, a career public servant who was lawfully appointed by the court, "is another blatant attempt to intimidate anyone that doesn't agree with them and undermine judicial independence," Sens. Cory Booker and Andy Kim, both New Jersey Democrats, said in a joint statement. "This administration may not like the law, but they are not above it." They added that the firing is another example of Trump's Justice Department "again criticizing a court that acted within its authority, continuing a pattern of publicly undermining judicial decisions and showing disregard for the rule of law and the separation of powers." Todd Blanche, deputy attorney general, said earlier on X that Habba's term expires at midnight Friday and that the judges' "rush" to appoint Grace "reveals what this was always about: a left-wing agenda, not the rule of law." The order appointing Grace U.S. attorney general of New Jersey was signed by District Judge Renee Marie Bumb, a President George W. Bush appointee. "When judges act like activists, they undermine confidence in our justice system," Blanche said on X. "Alina is President Trump's choice to lead -- and no partisan bench can override that."