The “Trump Accounts” proposal would create a government-funded investment account for every American baby born during a four-year window. Under the plan, each newborn between January 1, 2025, and December 31, 2028, with a Social Security number, would receive a one-time $1,000 deposit into a tax-deferred investment account. The funds would be invested in a broad U.S. stock index (such as the S&P 500), meaning the account’s value would rise or fall based on market performance.
In addition to the seed money, parents or guardians could contribute up to $5,000 per year to the child’s account. Employers would also be allowed to contribute, up to $2,500 annually, and those contributions would not be considered taxable income for the employee. The money would be locked until the child turns 18, at which point the account would function similarly to an IRA, with withdrawals taxed and some penalties if taken out early.
Supporters of Trump Accounts argue that it offers a transformative boost for wealth-building. The White House, along with business leaders, frames it as a pro-family and pro-capitalism move, giving children a stake in the stock market from birth. They suggest that this could help more Americans access long-term investing, especially those who have never had a foothold in the markets. Some estimates put the potential value of an account much higher if contributions are maximized: the U.S. Council of Economic Advisers projects that with regular contributions, an account could reach over $300,000 by age 18 under optimistic return scenarios.
But there are serious criticisms and risks. Some experts warn that the $1,000 initial deposit is very modest in the grand scheme — compounded over time it might not amount to a life-changing sum for many families, especially without additional contributions. Others worry about the long-term fiscal cost: funding this would significantly add to the national deficit. There’s also concern that putting government money into the stock market on behalf of children exposes those funds to volatility and market risk — downturns could wipe out much of the supposed benefit.
From a structural standpoint, some analysts say the design of Trump Accounts does not align with evidence-based best practices for early-wealth building programs. The Urban Institute argues that, unlike centralized public models (e.g., state-run 529 savings plans), the proposal’s reliance on private investment accounts could drive up costs through fees, reducing the net gains, especially for lower wealth families. In contrast, successful early-wealth programs tend to have automatic enrollment, centralized structures, and supportive mechanisms like financial education or side savings accounts — features absent in the Trump Accounts plan.
Finally, critics also point out issues of equity and fairness. Washington Monthly argues that children from wealthier families would benefit disproportionately, because those parents are most likely to contribute the annual maximum. On top of that, the four-year eligibility window (2025–2028 births) means many kids born just outside that period receive nothing — creating a kind of arbitrary “notch” based solely on birthday. Meanwhile, without targeted additional contributions for low-income families, the accounts may fail to close wealth gaps — and administrative costs could undercut the value for those who need it most
