$1,000 for Newborns? 'Trump Accounts' Are Signed into Law
A Fatherhood Framework <> Your Brain on Money Collaboration
Hey folks - quick note before we dive in. As you may have seen, my home state of Texas has been inundated with heavy rains and major flooding. Sadly, this has cost the lives of many people, including dozens of children, as well as destroying homes across the Hill Country region.
If you are able, I encourage you to take a look at the various charities working to help support the storm victims, and consider donating.
Sincerely,
Dylan
Hey y’all,
of & of here! We have been talking a bit about a less covered policy baked into the recently passed “Big, Beautiful Bill” - one that aims to put $1,000 in a savings account for every child born in America.Dylan wrote on this earlier when the policy was just a proposal, but when it became clear that this was going to become the law of the land, he wanted to get a financial expert's take on what it could mean for families - and Hannah was kind enough to lend her expertise and break it down.
In a world where financial policy usually comes wrapped in 100 layers of bureaucratic complexity, this idea feels pretty straightforward and simple. In fact, many economists have advocated for this concept, and lawmakers have introduced similar policies in the past.
But what actually happens when you scale "free money for babies" to an entire country?
What These Accounts Actually Are (and How They’ll Work)
Hanna here: let's start with the basics. Under the policy, every child born in the U.S. (between Jan. 1, 2025 and Jan 1, 2029) will get a savings account seeded with $1,000 from the federal government. Parents will also be able to contribute up to $5,000 a year to that account.
The account will be in the kid's name but managed by parents (or a government trust) until they hit adulthood. Money in the account is invested in a diversified, broad-based index fund.
The money will grow tax-free, similar to a Roth IRA, and could eventually be used for approved purposes: higher education expenses (like college), a first home, starting a business, or rolling into retirement savings. When the child turns 31, they’ll be able to access the full account.
These accounts are quite similar to other types of tax-advantage accounts, like 529 plans and Roth IRAs. But unlike 529s, which parents actively choose to open and fund, BSAs would be automatic and universal. Every parent will have a financial account for their child whether they asked for one or not.
This matters more than you might think. Traditional savings vehicles require what economists call "activation energy" — you have to decide to open the account, figure out where to put it, and then remember to contribute to it. BSAs would flip that script entirely. Instead of opting in to save for your child's future, you'd have to actively opt out.
A 529 plan lets you contribute as much as you want (up to very high limits) but restricts withdrawals to education expenses. A Roth IRA for kids requires earned income and has contribution limits, but offers more withdrawal flexibility. These savings accounts would sit somewhere in the middle — automatic but capped, flexible but regulated.
The Promise (or Peril) of the Trump Savings Accounts
Let's talk about what could go right — and what could go wrong.
The upside is genuinely compelling. A $1,000 head start, compounding for 18+ years, could become meaningful money. Assuming an 8% annual return, that initial $1,000 becomes around $4,000 by age 18. Not life-changing, but not nothing either.
Add in any parental contributions along the way, and you're looking at a real asset. If parents put in $5,000 each year, at the same rate of return, that account would be worth around $200,000 by age 18 (over $100,000 in profit alone).
More importantly, every child would grow up knowing they own something. There's research suggesting that asset ownership — even small amounts — changes how people think about their future. Kids with savings accounts are more likely to go to college and less likely to engage in risky financial behaviors. The account becomes a tangible reminder that someone invested in their future.
For families who've never had investment accounts or savings vehicles, these accounts could serve as an introduction to the wealth-building tools that middle and upper-class families take for granted. There’s something beautifully democratic about the universality. Unlike means-tested programs that create bureaucratic hurdles, these accounts would treat every child the same regardless of their parents' income. That's both philosophically appealing and administratively simpler.
But here's where the potential risks start creeping in. The first issue is what economists call exposure — these accounts would tie every American child's financial future to market performance.
Then there are the liquidity constraints. Unlike a regular savings account, BSA funds would be locked up until adulthood and restricted to specific uses. The inability to access the money during genuine crises could create real hardship.
And there's the "financial literacy gap." Suddenly, every parent becomes responsible for making investment decisions for their child's BSA — or at least understanding what's happening with the money. That's empowering if you're comfortable with financial markets. It could be overwhelming if you're not.
The Questions That Will Make or Break This Issue
All the details that aren't decided yet, but it’s worth looking at some of the potential unknowns:
Who actually manages the money? The proposal mentions everything from TreasuryDirect to private sector partnerships. Will parents feel confident managing investments through a government portal? Will private companies market aggressively to BSA holders? The structure will shape how families interact with these accounts.
What about contribution limits and matching? The $1,000 seed is just the beginning. Will caps on additional contributions increase with inflation? Will the government match family contributions, and if so, how much? These decisions could dramatically change the program's impact on wealth inequality.
Will the program increase the amount of eligible children in the future? Right now, the bill targets children born in the next eight years or so.
How do we prevent these accounts from becoming political footballs? Every time control of government changes hands, will BSAs get modified, defunded, or restructured? The program only works if families can count on it being there in 18 years.
From Guarantees to Growth: A New Kind of Family Policy?
Hey y’all, Dylan jumping back in. Thanks to Hanna for her insights - her Your Brain on Money Substack is a ‘wealth’ of information (see what I did there?). Be sure to check it out for more excellent takes on finance.
What makes these new accounts particularly striking is the shift they represent - not just in policy, but in political philosophy. For decades, government benefits were primarily designed to meet immediate needs: food, shelter, health care, income support. That safety-net model hasn’t gone away, but these savings accounts reflect a different mindset - one that places more emphasis on future growth than present guarantees.
This shift is especially noticeable on the political right. While traditional conservative platforms often focused on reducing government spending or limiting welfare programs, this proposal hints at something more complex: a reshaping of benefits toward long-term investment, rather than outright elimination. The Trump Savings Accounts aren’t framed as giveaways: they’re structured as springboards, rooted in personal responsibility and financial participation.
But this change doesn’t exist in a vacuum. These accounts are part of a broader legislative package that has drawn criticism for scaling back elements of the social safety net, particularly Medicaid. Supporters argue that long-term investment tools like these accounts represent a modern, empowering alternative to traditional aid. Critics see them as a partial replacement for more foundational support, warning that families may be left with fewer immediate resources to fall back on. If access to health care or other direct benefits is reduced, the value of a $1,000 account - no matter how well it compounds over time - may feel far less compelling.
For many families, the math will be deeply personal. They’ll have to weigh the potential of a growing investment account against the certainty of benefits they may no longer receive. The idea is compelling. But like any shift from direct aid to investment-style policy, it brings with it new risks and questions about who ultimately benefits; and who’s being asked to sacrifice stability now for the promise of growth later.
A Glimpse at What’s Coming Next?
If all of this sounds like a trial balloon for a broader shift, that’s because it might be. These accounts could act as a pilot for a new generation of benefits that further blend public investment with private risk. It’s not hard to imagine similar savings models emerging in healthcare, housing, or even job training. What if Medicaid dollars could grow in a managed health savings account over time? What if job transition funds came tied to personal upskilling portfolios?
We’ve already seen versions of this take root: 529 education savings accounts, HSAs health reimbursement arrangements, flexible childcare subsidy FSAs - all with rules and incentives designed to guide individual choices instead of deliver blanket assistance. Some will hail this as empowering: letting families tailor support to their needs. Others will see it as a quiet erosion of the safety net, where collective guarantees are replaced by personal portfolios.
And that debate is especially relevant in light of the broader bill these accounts are attached to. Some observers see the Trump accounts as a policy sweetener meant to offset cuts elsewhere - particularly to Medicaid, which serves over 70 million Americans. In that context, families may find themselves comparing two very different models of support: one immediate and familiar, the other abstract and delayed. That’s not an easy tradeoff. And for policymakers, the challenge will be ensuring that these future-focused tools don’t come at the cost of present-day security.
Still, this model is gaining traction. It’s the kind of idea that could appeal to both conservatives who value individual responsibility and progressives interested in expanding access to wealth-building tools, at least in theory. But the tension between long-term potential and short-term sacrifice will define how this policy - and others like it - are received. That’s why it’s worth watching not just where this model goes next, but who it brings with it when it gets there.
The Changing Definition of “Providing”
This policy doesn’t just redefine government benefits - for many families, it reframes what it means to provide for their children. For generations, being a provider meant ensuring that immediate needs were met. Food. Shelter. Stability. But increasingly, parenthood also demands a vision for what comes next: college planning, first homes, entrepreneurial aspirations, and retirement security. This shift mirrors a broader cultural evolution, where “providing” means managing opportunity, not just survival.
That’s a heavy lift for parents - especially when the present already feels so uncertain. But it also opens the door to a different kind of legacy. When parents contribute to these accounts, they’re not just padding a savings fund. They’re telling their kids: I’m thinking about your future. I believe in it. And I want you to be ready when the time comes.
It’s a meaningful gesture, but it also adds pressure. Families already juggling rising housing costs, healthcare expenses, and student loans may feel like they’re being asked to do one more thing with money they don’t have. And this pressure is compounded by what might be lost in the exchange. If these accounts are being positioned as a replacement for benefits that help families meet immediate needs - like Medicaid, nutrition assistance, or child care subsidies - then the very act of “providing” could begin to feel much more like a balancing act than a clear path.
For many families, the calculation will be pragmatic. Can we count on this investment to pay off? Can I get work or my family members to contribute to the accounts? Will it be enough if other supports are pulled back? And if the burden of navigating that uncertainty falls entirely on parents, what does that say about the direction of family policy going forward?
Providing, in this new framework, is less about the paycheck and more about the pathway. It’s about creating optionality for your children - and doing so in a system that increasingly asks families to shoulder more of that responsibility. Whether that vision inspires confidence or concern will depend on how well these accounts are implemented - and who’s left standing beside them.
 | A guest post by
|