Trump unveils $1,000 govt-funded accounts for newborns: What to know
The accounts would be seeded at birth with a one-time $1,000 government contribution and grow tax-deferred, tracking a broad stock index. Parents and guardians could contribute an additional $5,000 annually. The accounts will be privately held and accrue interest until the child turns 18.The bill would require at least one parent to produce a Social Security number with work authorisations, meaning US citizen children born to some categories of immigrants would be excluded from the benefit. But unlike other baby bond programs, which generally target disadvantaged groups, this one would be available to families of all incomes.advertisementWhile Trump hailed the proposal as a "pro-capitalist answer to inequality," experts were quick to raise concerns, especially as the program comes amid proposals by Trump-aligned lawmakers to cut programs that directly support low-income families."The rise and fall of nations occurs when you have a wealth gap that grows, when you have people who lose faith in the system," said Brad Gerstner, a Silicon Valley investor who helped craft the proposal. "We're not agentless. We can do something."However, experts say the accounts are more symbolic than transformative. Assuming a 7% annual return, the $1,000 seed investment would grow to roughly $3,570 over 18 years — a meaningful boost, but not a game-changer for children growing up in poverty.The program is drawing mixed reviews from social advocates. While some applaud the intent to build generational wealth, others argue that Trump Accounts won't help families facing food insecurity, homelessness, or lack of health care today."Having children have health care, having their families have access to SNAP and food are what we really need the country focused on," said Shimica Gaskins of End Child Poverty California.With inputs from Associated PressMust Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
14 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
‘Successful strikes, not Mr Trump...': Shashi Tharoor backs India's stance on truce with Pakistan
Congress MP Shashi Tharoor on Tuesday heaped praise on Operation Sindoor, India's military move against terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, saying the operation sent a clear message that "we will not sit quietly of terror is unleashed on us". New Delhi: Congress MP Shashi Tharoor during the Monsoon session of Parliament, in New Delhi, Monday, Aug. 18, 2025. (PTI Photo/Ravi Choudhary) (PTI08_18_2025_000222B)(PTI) He also backed India's stance on the cessation of hostilities with Pakistan in May following days of a military conflict, and said that it was India's successful strikes "and not Mr Trump", that led Pakistan to appeal for a truce with India. In his address during the book launch of 'Whither India-Pakistan Relations Today? Can They Ever Be Good Neighbours?', Tharoor said, "The successful strikes on the night of 9-10 May and the ability of India to intercept the attempted Pakistani response, when they sent missiles to Delhi on the morning of 10th May, is what contributed undoubtedly, and not Mr Trump, to the call by the Pakistani DGMO to his Indian counterpart asking for peace." India and Pakistan declared a ceasefire on May 10, days after India launched Operation Sindoor, following a call by Pakistan's Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) to his Indian counterpart. However, US President Donald Trump has since claimed on many occasions that is was upon his mediation that India and Pakistan reached a ceasefire agreement, and that he stopped a "nuclear war". His claims have time and again been refuted by New Delhi, asserting that the truce was reached bilaterally. However, the Congress has often questioned the government over Trump's claims. Most recently, Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi raked up the issue in Parliament seeking clarity on the US President's claims. The Congress leader dared Prime Minister Narendra Modi to directly confront Trump's claims, and said, 'If he has the courage, he will say here that Donald Trump is a liar. 50% Indira Gandhi ka courage hai toh ye bol dega,' Rahul Gandhi said in a dare of sorts to PM Modi and then went on to fix his reference to the prime minister saying, "bol denge, sorry'.
NDTV
14 minutes ago
- NDTV
Fact Check: Trump Says He Has Ended 7 Wars. The Reality Isn't So Clear Cut
President Donald Trump has projected himself as a peacemaker since returning to the White House in January, touting his efforts to end global conflicts. In meetings with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and other European leaders Monday, Trump repeated that he has been instrumental in stopping multiple wars but didn't specify which. "I've done six wars, I've ended six wars, Trump said in the Oval Office with Zelenskyy. He later added: "If you look at the six deals I settled this year, they were all at war. I didn't do any ceasefires." He raised that figure Tuesday, telling "Fox & Friends" that "we ended seven wars." But although Trump helped mediate relations among many of these nations, experts say his impact isn't as clear cut as he claims. Here's a closer look at the conflicts: Trump is credited with ending the 12-day war. Israel launched attacks on the heart of Iran's nuclear program and military leadership in June, saying it wanted to stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon — which Tehran has denied it was trying to do. Trump negotiated a ceasefire between Israel and Iran just after directing American warplanes to strike Iran's Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz nuclear sites. He publicly harangued both countries into maintaining the ceasefire. Evelyn Farkas, executive director of Arizona State University's McCain Institute, said Trump should get credit for ending the war. "There's always a chance it could flare up again if Iran restarts its nuclear weapons program, but nonetheless, they were engaged in a hot war with one another," she said. "And it didn't have any real end in sight before President Trump got involved and gave them an ultimatum." Lawrence Haas, a senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the American Foreign Policy Council who is an expert on Israel-Iran tensions, agreed the U.S. was instrumental in securing the ceasefire. But he characterized it as a "temporary respite" from the ongoing "day-to-day cold war" between the two foes that often involves flare-ups. This could be described as tensions at best, and peace efforts — which don't directly involve the U.S. — have stalled. The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam on the Blue Nile River has caused friction between Ethiopia, Egypt and Sudan since the power-generating project was announced more than a decade ago. In July, Ethiopia declared the project complete, with an inauguration set for September. Egypt and Sudan oppose the dam. Although the vast majority of the water that flows down the Nile originates in Ethiopia, Egyptian agriculture relies on the river almost entirely. Sudan, meanwhile, fears flooding and wants to protect its own power-generating dams. During his first term, Trump tried to broker a deal between Ethiopia and Egypt but couldn't get them to agree. He suspended aid to Ethiopia over the dispute. In July, he posted on Truth Social that he helped the "fight over the massive dam (and) there is peace at least for now." However, the disagreement persists, and negotiations between Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan have stalled. "It would be a gross overstatement to say that these countries are at war," said Haas. "I mean, they're just not." The April killing of tourists in Jammu and Kashmir pushed India and Pakistan closer to war than they had been in years, but a ceasefire was reached. Trump has claimed that the U.S. brokered the ceasefire, which he said came about in part because he offered trade concessions. Pakistan thanked Trump, recommending him for the Nobel Peace Prize. But India has denied Trump's claims, saying there was no conversation between the U.S. and India on trade in regards to the ceasefire. Although India has downplayed the Trump administration's role in the ceasefire, Haas and Farkas believe the U.S. deserves some credit for helping stop the fighting. "I think that President Trump played a constructive role from all accounts, but it may not have been decisive. And again, I'm not sure whether you would define that as a full-blown war," Farkas said. The White House lists the conflict between these countries as one Trump resolved, but there has been no threat of a war between the two neighbors during Trump's second term, nor any significant contribution from Trump this year to improve their relations. Kosovo is a former Serbian province that declared independence in 2008. Tensions have persisted ever since, but never to the point of war, mostly because NATO-led peacekeepers have been deployed in Kosovo, which has been recognized by more than 100 countries. During his first term, Trump negotiated a wide-ranging deal between Serbia and Kosovo, but much of what was agreed on was never carried out. Trump has played a key role in peace efforts between the African neighbors, but he's hardly alone and the conflict is far from over. Eastern Congo, rich in minerals, has been battered by fighting with more than 100 armed groups. The most potent is the M23 rebel group backed by neighboring Rwanda, which claims it is protecting its territorial interests and that some of those who participated in the 1994 Rwandan genocide fled to Congo and are working with the Congolese army. The Trump administration's efforts paid off in June, when the Congolese and Rwandan foreign ministers signed a peace deal at the White House. The M23, however, wasn't directly involved in the U.S.-facilitated negotiations and said it couldn't abide by the terms of an agreement that didn't involve it. The final step to peace was meant to be a separate Qatar-facilitated deal between Congo and M23 that would bring about a permanent ceasefire. But with the fighting still raging, Monday's deadline for the Qatar-led deal was missed and there have been no public signs of major talks between Congo and M23 on the final terms. Trump this month hosted the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan at the White House, where they signed a deal aimed at ending a decades-long conflict between the two nations. Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan called the signed document a "significant milestone," and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev hailed Trump for performing "a miracle." The two countries signed agreements intended to reopen key transportation routes and reaffirm Armenia's and Azerbaijan's commitment to signing a peace treaty. The treaty's text was initialed by the countries' foreign ministers at that meeting, which indicates preliminary approval. But the two countries have yet to sign and ratify the deal. Armenia and Azerbaijan have been locked in a bitter conflict over territory since the early 1990s, when ethnic Armenian forces took control of the Karabakh province, known internationally as Nagorno-Karabakh, and nearby territories. In 2020, Azerbaijan's military recaptured broad swaths of territory. Russia brokered a truce and deployed about 2,000 peacekeepers to the region. In September 2023, Azerbaijani forces launched a lightning blitz to retake remaining portions. The two countries have worked toward normalizing ties and signing a peace treaty ever since. Officials from Thailand and Cambodia credit Trump with pushing the Asian neighbors to agree to a ceasefire in this summer's brief border conflict. Cambodia and Thailand have clashed in the past over their shared border. The latest fighting began in July after a land mine explosion along the border wounded five Thai soldiers. Tensions had been growing since May, when a Cambodian soldier was killed in a confrontation that created a diplomatic rift and roiled Thai politics. Both countries agreed in late July to an unconditional ceasefire during a meeting in Malaysia. Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim pressed for the pact, but there was little headway until Trump intervened. Trump said on social media that he warned the Thai and Cambodian leaders that the U.S. would not move forward with trade agreements if the hostilities continued. Both countries faced economic difficulties and neither had reached tariff deals with the U.S., though most of their Southeast Asian neighbors had. According to Ken Lohatepanont, a political analyst and University of Michigan doctoral candidate, "President Trump's decision to condition a successful conclusion to these talks on a ceasefire likely played a significant role in ensuring that both sides came to the negotiating table when they did."
Indian Express
14 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Trump administration to screen ‘anti-Americanism' for immigrants seeking lawful work, citizenship in US
In another major hurdle for the immigrants seeking to live and work in the United States legally, President Donald Trump's administration has said that they will screen immigrants for 'anti-Americanism', which has raised the eyebrows of critics who said the move could give too much leeway to officers in rejecting foreign applicants based on subjective judgements, AP reported. According to the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the officers will vet applicants who have applied for benefits, like green card, whether they 'endorsed, promoted, supported, or otherwise espoused' anti-American, terrorist or antisemitic views. USCIS is committed to implementing policies and procedures that root out anti-Americanism and fully support the enforcement of rigorous screening and vetting measures. We've updated our policy guidance to ensure our officers are aware of the factors they may consider in… — USCIS (@USCIS) August 19, 2025 In a statement, the USCIS spokesperson Matthew Tragesser said 'America's benefits should not be given to those who despise the country and promote anti-American ideologies.' Clarifying the air over immigration benefits, Tragesser said 'Immigration benefits, including to live and work in the United States remain a privilege, not a right.' However, an exhaustive list wasn't released by the USCIS that specifies what constitutes anti-Americanism and it wasn't immediately clear how and when these directives would be applied on the immigrants applying to work and live in the US. As per Elizabeth Jacobs, director of regulatory affairs and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, the United States and immigration agencies have given a message that they are going to be less tolerant towards anti-Americanism or antisemitism when vetting and deciding the applications of immigrants. 'The agency cannot tell officers that they have to deny — just to consider it as a negative discretion,' Jacobs said, reported AP. Critics have said the policy revision by the USCIS would allow more subjective views of officers regarding anti-Americanism and their judgements could be clouded with personal bias. The policy changes follows a series of other major changes that have cropped up under Trump administration since January this year, including social media vetting and the recent addition of assessing applicants seeking naturalization for 'good moral character' (with inputs from AP)
