logo
'Free money' from Trump accounts is a 'no-brainer,' says expert—but other options may be better

'Free money' from Trump accounts is a 'no-brainer,' says expert—but other options may be better

CNBC08-07-2025
Some young American families will soon be getting a gift from Uncle Sam.
The sweeping budget bill that President Donald Trump signed into law on Friday included a provision for the creation of investment accounts that parents can open on behalf of children under 18. And for U.S. citizens born from 2025 through 2028, the government will seed the accounts with an initial contribution of $1,000.
Republican lawmakers have nicknamed these vehicles "Trump accounts," but the idea of creating so-called baby bonds has been around for a while. Hillary Clinton brought up the idea during her 2007 campaign, for example, and Democratic Senator Corey Booker proposed legislation offering up to $50,000 for newborns in 2021.
Depending on your goals, these new accounts don't offer some of the tax advantages available through existing accounts, such as 529 accounts for college savers or Roth IRAs for retirement investors. But there's no reason a Trump account shouldn't be part of your portfolio if your child qualifies, says Jaime Eckels, a partner at Plante Moran Financial Advisors.
"Someone is giving me $1,000 for my kid? That's a no-brainer. Who turns away free money?" she says. "From there you'll have to decide what additional savings you'll have for your child."
Here's what she and other financial pros say you should know about Trump Accounts.
Once the government seeds the account, parents can contribute up to $5,000 per year, post-tax, to a portfolio that must be invested in a diversified fund that tracks a U.S. stock index. Employers can contribute to employees' children's accounts as well — up to $2,500 a year, an amount that won't count as income to the worker.
Account holders can't touch the money until they turn 18, after which the accounts are treated much like a traditional IRA. While the money grows tax-deferred, withdrawals are taxed as regular income, plus a 10% penalty if you take the money out before age 59½, with some exceptions.
Money can be taken out penalty-free for higher education expenses, or for those that come as a result of disability, domestic abuse or a natural disaster. There's a $10,000 exception for new home purchases, and $5,000 can go toward a baby of their own.
The accounts' selling point for investors, advocates say, is the opportunity to begin investing early. That was the same message people like Brad Gerstner, founder and CEO of private investing firm Altimeter Capital, promoted while working with lawmakers in recent years on a project called Invest America.
Gerstner, who spoke alongside other CEOS at a White House roundtable in June, basically got what he asked for — a long-term account seeded with $1,000 from the government plus incentives for corporations to contribute more.
"Think of 401(k)s from birth, where corporations like Uber or United will then match those grants to those kids at birth, where parents now who were afraid [or] didn't know how to open up an account can now save 50 bucks a week or 100 bucks every couple of weeks," Gerstner said at the CNBC Delivering Alpha Summit that year. After three decades, "a 30-year-old today would have over $270,000 in their Invest America account."
His example isn't unfeasible. An account with a $1,000 initial deposit and $200 monthly contributions growing at a 7% annual rate over 30 years would yield a balance of about $254,000, according to Make It's compounding interest calculator. Increase the rate of return to 8%, and the balance jumps to about $311,000.
"There's a forced saving component when you put $1,000 into an account. It's not going to make or break most people, but sometimes it gets people interested in saving and investing," says Eckels. "Those things are great."
If you're already in the habit of saving and investing money, however, existing accounts may offer more attractive tax benefits, depending on your goals, experts say.
If you're hoping to set aside cash for your child's education, for instance, a 529 plan is likely the stronger option. Like Trump accounts, these vehicles are funded with after-tax dollars, but withdrawals are exempt from federal taxes (many states offer an income tax break on 529s as well) as long as the money is put toward a qualified education expense.
These include not only college tuition but also trade school and apprenticeship expenses, and up to $10,000 for K-12 tuition and student loan payments.
These accounts are designed to save for education, but you're not totally pigeonholed if you invest in one and your kid's education costs less than you thought. For 529 accounts that have been open at least 15 years, you can roll over up to $35,000 in unused funds to a Roth IRA. You can also change the beneficiary of the account from one child to another.
If you want to use the Trump account to invest for long-term goals, such as retirement, brokerage accounts and Roth IRAs may come with more favorable tax treatment or flexibility.
A so-called custodial brokerage account, which you can open on a child's behalf, allows you to manage the portfolio until they come of age to take it over themselves. These are regular, taxable accounts, so gains on any investment held for more than a year are taxed at the capital gains rate — generally lower than the income rate you'll owe on Trump account withdrawals.
Plus, these accounts allow you to hold virtually any investment, including stocks, bonds and cryptocurrency, as opposed to the U.S. stock index fund you must hold in a Trump account.
Parents of children who have earned income could also consider opening a Roth IRA on the child's behalf. Roths are funded with after-tax dollars as well, but investments held in these accounts grow tax-free. And provided that your child is 59½ when they begin withdrawing from the accounts, they won't owe a dime in tax to the U.S. government on the money.
You can always withdraw up to what you've contributed to a Roth tax- and penalty-free. You can even withdraw earnings, too, without owing anything, for qualified purchases, including up to $10,000 for buying your first home.
Contribution limits may play into your calculus around which accounts to fund as well. Roth IRAs clock in slightly above Trump accounts, with a $7,000 annual maximum for those under age 50. Single filers can contribute up to $19,000 per beneficiary per year to a 529 account without incurring gift tax, while married couples filing jointly can put in $38,000. There's no limit on taxable brokerage accounts.
Still, if you're in the position to take advantage of free money and compounding growth, you have very little to lose, and plenty to gain, with a Trump account, says Eckels.
While other accounts may be more appealing for your particular goals, "Trump accounts can be a great complement," she says.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The Post's Eric Adams support: Letters to the Editor — Aug. 13, 2025
The Post's Eric Adams support: Letters to the Editor — Aug. 13, 2025

New York Post

time18 minutes ago

  • New York Post

The Post's Eric Adams support: Letters to the Editor — Aug. 13, 2025

The Issue: The Post's editorial urging President Trump to endorse Mayor Adams for re-election. Wasn't it the New York Post that featured photos of Mayor Adams greeting busloads of illegal immigrants at Port Authority ('The Post says: Endorse Adams Apple,' Editorial, Aug. 8)? Have you already forgotten about the billions of dollars that taxpayers shelled out to house, feed and educate illegals? Advertisement Have you forgotten about all the corrupt politicians Adams surrounded himself with in his administration? One would think The Post would do the right thing for New Yorkers and instead ask President Trump to endorse Curtis Sliwa. Ruth Adler The Bronx Advertisement The Post's support for Eric Adams illustrates a lack of innovation. New York City is primed for a change, which requires the insights of Sliwa. Any other candidate inhabits a 'business as usual' mentality. Advertisement God willing, enough people will stop the madness and give Sliwa his due. Jonathan Kiddrane Queens I urge all New Yorkers to get behind Adams. Advertisement I believe that he cares about New York City and is well aware of the mistakes he has made in his first term. Above all else, he cares about the quality-of-life issues in all five boroughs. He does not want to brainwash us, seize property, close family businesses or make our neighborhoods less safe. Whether you live in Chinatown, Little Italy, Forest Hills, Harlem or elsewhere, Adams will advocate for you. Ken Karcinell Hewlett Adams is the greatest sleazeball since Jimmy Walker during the Roaring '20s. Yes, Andrew Cuomo is distasteful and Zohran Mamdani is over the moon, but going to bat for Adams indicates rabid insanity. Advertisement Doug Brin Brooklyn Has the New York Post lost its mind? How, for the love of God, could you ask President Trump to endorse Adams for re-election? Advertisement Adams has been a complete disaster since his first day in office. Cuomo and Mamdani — the despicable communist — are even worse. Sliwa is the only viable candidate with a chance to bring some semblance of sanity back to our once-great city. John Lucadamo Advertisement Westchester County While The Post raises legitimate questions about Cuomo's record, endorsing Adams overlooks how many of his policies resemble those of Mamdani and Cuomo. Trump would be wise to refrain from any endorsements to avoid involvement in the federal scrutiny the next mayor will likely face over a range of ludicrous campaign proposals. Michael Mulhall Advertisement Moseley, Va. The Issue: The possible cancellation of 'The Howard Stern Show' following a dropoff in listeners. Howard Stern lost his edge years ago when he suddenly went woke ('Bye bye booey: Staff coasting,' Aug. 10). For most of his career, he eschewed good taste and battled critics, going out of his way to be politically incorrect. The more outrageous he was, the funnier he got, and that earned him a tremendous following. But, as Howard's longtime fans know, he is driven by money. When Stern realized his brand of humor could get him canceled, he became a soft liberal. Bill Calvo Brooklyn This is not the old Howard Stern; he is kissing up to the targets, like the woke people he once hated. I have a better opinion of Stern staffers Gary Dell'Abate and Fred Norris than I do of Stern. He shouldn't be offered any extension of his show. The time to pull the plug is now. Sheldon Fosburg Staten Island Want to weigh in on today's stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to letters@ Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy, and style.

Just say no to Big Dope — and its push for even more legal marijuana
Just say no to Big Dope — and its push for even more legal marijuana

New York Post

time18 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Just say no to Big Dope — and its push for even more legal marijuana

Will more marijuana use make America a better place? Not many who've seen and smelled what legalizing the drug has done to cities like New York, Washington, DC, and San Francisco would say so. Yet President Donald Trump is contemplating a change to marijuana's federal classification that would make it easier to buy and more profitable to sell. The pot industry — Big Dope — is heavily invested in getting its product recategorized from a Schedule 1 to a Schedule 3 drug. Industry leaders ponied up for a $1-million-a-plate Trump fundraising dinner earlier this month to hear what the president had in mind, according to The Wall Street Journal. The president should ignore the well-funded cannabis lobby: What matters is what more and cheaper marijuana will mean for ordinary Americans. Twenty-four states have legalized recreational use of the drug, despite the ugly results experienced by the first state to do so. Taking advantage of high Democratic turnout the year of President Barack Obama's re-election, activists passed a Colorado ballot measure to make pot legal back in 2012. Legalization didn't take effect until 2014, but by 2022 marijuana use in Colorado and other states that had then legalized was 24% higher than in states where recreational use remained illegal. A study by the South Korean scholar Sunyoung Lee published in the International Review of Law and Economics this year examines what's happened to crime levels in US states that legalized pot. Lee reported his findings 'do not yield conclusive evidence supporting a reduction in crime rates after legalizing recreational marijuana. Rather, they underscore notable positive associations with property crimes and suggest potential correlations with violent crimes.' The marijuana lobby claims that drug prohibition, not the drug itself, drives violent crime. That would be a bad argument even without evidence like Lee's, which suggests legal weed makes crime worse. After all, any profit-driven criminal enterprise could be shut down by simply legalizing the crime in question. If bank robbery were legal, bank robbers wouldn't need to use guns. If auto theft were legal, carjackers wouldn't have to use force, and there wouldn't be any violence associated with black-market chop shops because the chop shops would all be as legal as the commercial marijuana industry is today. Legalize everything Tony Soprano does, and Tony won't have to get rough — but he'll only do more of what he was doing before. Libertarians who argue for legalizing drugs to stop drug violence are closer than they realize to the radical leftists who argue property crimes shouldn't be prosecuted. The psychology is the same: They sympathize with the people who make it harder to live in a civilized society and reject society's right to defend its rules. There are downsides to laws against marijuana, just as there are costs to protecting private property and citizens' bodily safety. But the costs are well worth paying when the alternative is passivity in the face of aggression, handing your belongings or your life over to any thug who makes a demand. For a time marijuana legalization was sold to voters as just a matter of leaving people alone to consume whatever they want in private, without bothering anybody else. Yet millions of Americans have now lived long enough with pot legalization, or the non-enforcement of laws still on the books, to know the pot lobby perpetrated a fraud. What the country has actually had to deal with is pot smoking so rife in public that the offensive smell — and the sight and sounds of intoxication — smacks you in your face. It's hardly different from dope-users blowing smoke right in your eyes on the street. That's not the worst crime in the world — but neither is shoplifting, and there's no reason to tolerate that, either. Tolerating such things only breeds more tolerance for worse abuses, which is what has led progressives to treat even violent criminals with the utmost leniency. Two scenes in the suburbs of DC convinced me pot tolerance has gone too far. First was seeing an African-American bus driver, on a blazing hot summer day, order two dope-smoking teens to put out their joints and be aware there were children around. To the extent our cities work at all it's because of working-class men like him — and the rest of us have to decide whether we're on his side or the punks'. A year or so later I watched a young mother one bright October afternoon hold her small daughter's hand as they walked through a neighborhood reeking of high-potency pot. The multibillion-dollar weed industry got to advertise its product to a little girl about 4 years old that day. It's an industry that notoriously even sells its drug in candy form, as 'gummies.' Our cities and towns shouldn't be open-air drug dens — and Trump shouldn't let a lobby get high off of making Americans' lives worse. Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review and editor-at-large of The American Conservative.

Mamdani's ‘war' against Trump spells bad news for NYC
Mamdani's ‘war' against Trump spells bad news for NYC

New York Post

time18 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Mamdani's ‘war' against Trump spells bad news for NYC

Zohran Mamdani's 'Five Boroughs Against Trump' tour makes oodles of sense for him — but only at the expense of the rest of the city. Not just because the last thing New Yorkers need is a mayor seeking a war with the White House, since they'd inevitably be the cannon fodder. More: Centering the mayoral debate on countering President Donald Trump encourages everyone to ignore all the issues Mamdani doesn't want voters thinking about, like how to make the streets and subways safe, the public schools functional and the local economy growing. It also prevents any focus on his privilege and inexperience, his cop-hatred, his obsessive loathing of Israel and the unworkability of pretty much his entire 'positive' agenda. Truth is, it mainly appeals to the vanity of his Democratic Socialists and their cheerleaders: Already imagining that their guy's surprise victory (in a Democratic primary) puts America on the brink of a new socialist era, they now get to also dream of Mamdani somehow turning the tide against Bad Orange Man. Except that he can't 'stand up' to Trump (beyond boring bits like the legal efforts to claw back improperly canceled grants that Mayor Eric Adams already has under way). Indeed, no mere mayor of any city can. Check the US Constitution: You'll find no mention of a mayoral power to check the president, Congress or for that matter the Supreme Court. And in the real world, a Mayor Mamdani declaring war on Trump would entail setting City Hall on fire and expecting the White House to burn down. New York City has zero leverage over the federal government, except perhaps 1) Wall Street's money — which socialists can't direct except via their trust funds — and 2) whatever power the national media has left — when the media's already done its damnedest to stop Trump. The feds, meanwhile, can screw New York eight ways to Sunday, starting with cutting back on the hundreds of billions it sends our way. Nor can local government 'withhold' New Yorkers' taxes, as some whiz kids in the Legislature suggest. State Attorney General Tish James, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and a few complacent judges have already waged their worst lawfare against Trump, while then-Mayor Bill de Blasio did what he could against the Trump businesses that remain here. 'Trump-proofing' the city — the new tough talk from progressives around the country — is an empty threat, too: Federal law almost always trumps state and local ordinances. Playing tough guy and talking big is sure to give Mamdani lots of outraged outtakes for his social media. But he is writing checks that the people of NYC will have to pay.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store