As the United States confronts record-low fertility rates and rising anxiety about the cost of raising children, a new policy is attempting to shift the ground beneath the debate. Trump Accounts, a national savings program for children, combine government funding with major philanthropic support. Supporters say they represent a cultural turning point toward valuing families. Critics say they offer too little to address the financial pressures facing young parents. Yet almost everyone agrees on one thing: the creation of these accounts has changed the national conversation about what society owes its youngest members.
What Trump Accounts Are and How They Work
Trump Accounts are investment accounts created for every newborn during President Trump’s second term. The federal government seeds each account with $1,000 for babies born from 2025 through 2028. Children born before 2025 but still age ten or under can receive $250, funded by private donors.
The accounts work much like retirement plans. Children cannot withdraw the money before age eighteen, and withdrawals come with penalties unless used for education, buying a first home, or other approved purposes. The funds will be invested in stock market index funds such as the S&P 500, giving children exposure to long-term growth.
Parents will open the accounts using a new tax form. Online enrollment is expected soon. The structure allows nonprofits, local governments, and donors to contribute to large groups of children, a feature that may prove transformative.
President Trump said the intention is to give children “a shot at the American dream,” while Congressman Blake Moore, who sponsored the legislation, said the program shows that “the Trump administration cares about upward mobility and economic prosperity for families.”
Moore has already opened accounts for his own children and joked that he would “match” the Dell family’s massive donation by giving sixty dollars per child. “That is creating shockwaves across the country today,” he said with humor, but he also stressed that the accounts represent a long-term investment in the next generation.
The Dell Family’s Historic Donation
The Trump Accounts became a national headline when Michael and Susan Dell pledged $6.25 billion to support them. Their donation will provide $250 to children age ten and under who live in ZIP codes where the median household income is below $150,000. The contribution is one of the largest direct-giving philanthropic acts in American history.
Ray Boshara of the Center for Social Development called it “a remarkable sum in any philanthropic endeavor,” and says he believes other organizations may now follow. The structure of Trump Accounts encourages such giving because it allows donors to contribute to an entire class of children at once, rather than supporting them individually.
The donation also caught the attention of Senator Cory Booker, who praised the effort even though the accounts originated under a Republican administration. Booker said they were “a step in the right direction,” and added that if wealthy Americans can receive “huge pathways for tax avoidance,” then society should also encourage giving to children.
The New York Times noted that the Dell donation fits a broader national shift toward philanthropy that sends money directly to individuals rather than through large bureaucratic foundations. Benjamin Soskis of the Urban Institute explained that many major donors now want to avoid “constructing a traditional philanthropic bureaucracy” in favor of more direct impact.
How Much Money Children Could Eventually Have
The long-term value of a Trump Account depends on how much funding families or donors add. The Council of Economic Advisers modeled different outcomes. A child whose family only receives the $1,000 federal seed may reach adulthood with just $5,839. This is a meaningful but limited amount.
But for families able to contribute the maximum each year, the account could reach $303,757 by age eighteen. The difference is enormous and illustrates what critics describe as a widening gap between children whose families can afford to save and those who cannot.
Neale Mahoney and Adam Shaw wrote that “what could have been a leveling tool instead risks becoming a widening wedge between the haves and the have-nots.” Their concern is that tax advantages within the accounts favor families who can save more.
Still, research shows that even small balances can shape expectations. The SEED OK experiment in Oklahoma found that parents whose newborns received a $1,000 deposit in a 529 plan reported higher educational expectations and more long-term planning. Supporters argue that this psychological shift is valuable even when the dollar amounts are modest.
What the Wall Street Journal Says About the Policy
The Wall Street Journal examined whether Trump Accounts might change fertility decisions. The Journal concluded that the accounts are unlikely to influence how many children Americans have, since the money cannot be used until adulthood. But some Americans still see symbolic power in the change.
Michael Knowles, a podcast host and father of three, said the program sends a positive message about parenting. “The very fact of our government putting money aside for children re-establishes the old standard that it’s good to have kids,” he said. Knowles plans to enroll all of his children to receive the Dell family’s $250 contribution.
The Journal also spotlighted the rising cost of child care, which remains one of the biggest reasons young couples delay having children. Demographer Karen Guzzo said, “If I have a baby today, I need money today, I do not need money when my kid turns eighteen.” She believes Trump Accounts do not address the immediate financial pressures faced by most families.
Reactions from Policy Experts and Economic Advocates
The program has inspired both enthusiasm and concern from experts in social policy. Terry Schilling of the American Principles Project called Trump Accounts “a great starting point at shifting our economy toward the next generation.” He warned that Millennials and Gen Z “are the first generations to inherit a worse country and economy than their parents.”
Roger Severino of the Heritage Foundation said the accounts may help reduce anxiety about starting a family, since parents will know “there will be a nest egg waiting for their kids down the road.”
But some analysts fear that the design will leave many families behind. Madeline Brown of the Urban Institute pointed out that parents must fill out a tax form to open the account, saying that “millions of families, especially lower- and moderate-income families, won’t go through all of those steps.” She also noted that Trump Accounts offer limited flexibility, which may make them less appealing to families facing unpredictable expenses.
Boshara said he wants to see progressive deposits that would help low-income families more directly. “It is great that the Dells, and potentially others, will contribute money,” he said, “however, that is no substitute for the government itself actually doing progressive deposits for all kids.”
Why Democrats and the New York Times See Promise
The New York Times highlighted the bipartisan appeal of child savings accounts. Senator Booker’s earlier baby bonds proposal used similar ideas but focused on larger government contributions targeted to families with fewer resources. Booker said that Trump Accounts now give future lawmakers a “structure” they can improve.
The Times also explained that giving money directly to children is becoming an increasingly popular philanthropic approach. Platforms like GoFundMe, mutual-aid networks, and direct cash transfers have grown dramatically. The Dell donation may be the largest direct gift ever made to individuals.
Economist Darrick Hamilton, one of the original baby bonds architects, said that Trump Accounts do not close the wealth gap but create an opening for future reforms. He believes a more left-leaning Congress could build on the structure and change it into a more equal system.
How Much These Accounts Might Change a Child’s Life
Even a small amount of money at age eighteen can alter the trajectory of a young person’s life. The funds can reduce student loan burdens, support vocational training, or provide a down payment for a first home. Supporters argue that children who know they have real assets are more likely to pursue higher goals.
Hadley Heath Manning, a mother of four, said she will accept the Dell contribution but does not expect the accounts to influence her family size. “I will take the money,” she said, “but it is probably not going to produce a fifth Manning child.” Her comment reflects a broad theme: Trump Accounts are meaningful, but not enough by themselves to reverse national fertility trends.
Still, raising a generation that enters adulthood with savings could reshape economic outcomes decades from now. If more corporations and philanthropists follow the Dell example, millions of children may gain a financial foundation that has been rare in American history.
A New Chapter in the National Debate Over Family Life
Trump Accounts do not fix childcare costs, housing affordability, or student debt. But they mark a notable shift. After decades of policies that many families found restrictive, the federal government is trying to create wealth for children instead of increasing burdens on parents.
Whether Trump Accounts become a major influence on family economics will depend on how they evolve. For now, they have brought new urgency to an old question: how should a wealthy nation invest in its youngest citizens, and what does it take to make raising a family feel possible again?
NP Editor: This could be a step in the right direction, but in the scheme of things is pretty small. We don’t believe it will affect decisions to have a family. Plus the tiny amount of inflation this will cause may offset the value in the long run.
