Latest news with #TrumpAccounts
USA Today
6 days ago
- Business
- USA Today
No, Trump did not approve $1,200 for stay-at-home moms, despite viral TikTok videos
No, Trump did not approve $1,200 for stay-at-home moms, despite viral TikTok videos Show Caption Hide Caption House passes President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' The House passed President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' It will now move onto the Senate. Viral TikTok videos falsely claim Trump approved $1,200 monthly payments for stay-at-home moms. The claim is not true, and the White House has not commented on the video. While a Trump-endorsed tax bill includes provisions indended to benefit families, it does not include direct payments to SAHM. A viral TikTok sound claims that President Donald Trump approved a $1,200 payment for single mothers, but it isn't real. "Breaking news, Trump just announced a new plan: $1,200 a month for stay-at-home moms," an apparently fake newscaster voice says over a montage of Trump signing executive orders and mothers taking care of kids in a video. It was posted around May 29. "No job, no moms and low-income families get priority." The voiceover was used in several similar videos, some of them with tens of thousands of likes and shares on the platform. It goes on to say Trump proposed a way to make parenting a full-time job under federal law, another false tidbit, before inviting users to weigh in on the idea in the comments. Here is what we know about the fake TikTok news clips. Trump and Pepe the Frog: 2016 campaign turned meme political. Then it became a hate symbol Is Trump issuing a $1,200 per month payment for stay-at-home moms? No. Trump has not yet announced any executive efforts to directly pay stay-at-home moms. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the fake videos. Trump's tax bill includes some proposals to pay families The Republican tax bill making its way through Congress, dubbed by Trump as the "Big Beautiful Bill," has some provisions that could bring more money to young families One part of the bill is a new savings account called "Trump Accounts." It would give a one-time $1,000 payment into a savings account for any babies born between January 2025 and January 2029. The savings account would be invested in a fund that would grow with the U.S. stock market, and parents could contribute up to $5,000 a year. The babies would be able to use some of the funds for select expenses after the age of 18, and the full account after the age of 30. The bill would also boost the child tax credit. But the hefty piece of legislation is not yet law; next, it will be considered by the Senate, where it could be further amended after the House voted to pass it on May 22. Contributing: Riley Beggin, USA TODAY Kinsey Crowley is the Trump Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach her at kcrowley@ Follow her on X and TikTok @kinseycrowley or Bluesky at @
Axios
29-05-2025
- Politics
- Axios
GOP bill would force D.C. to call its Metro the "Trump Train"
A House Republican introduced legislation to block federal funding for the Washington, D.C. Metrorail system unless it is renamed the "Trump Train". Why it matters: The bill is likely a long-shot, but it is the latest in a series of GOP measures geared primary towards displaying fealty to President Trump. The House passed a tax bill last week that would institute $1,000 savings accounts for newborns. Initially called "MAGA Accounts," the were changed last minute to "Trump Accounts." Lawmakers have also proposed bills to rename Dulles Airport after Trump, put him on the $100 bill and allow him to run for a third term. Driving the news: Rep. Greg Steube's (R-Fla.) Make Autorail Great Again Act threatens to withhold more than $150 million in annual federal grants to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA). To receive the funding, the system would have to be renamed to the Washington Metropolitan Authority for Greater Access (WMAGA) — a play on Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan. D.C. would also have to refer to its Metrorail system as the "Trump Train," another one of Trump's oft-used slogans. What he's saying: Steube said in a statement that the bill "demands accountability by conditioning federal funding on reforms that signal a cultural shift away from bureaucratic stagnation toward public-facing excellence and patriotism." WMATA, he argued, needs "a fresh identity that aligns with efficiency, service quality, and renewed public trust." Steube noted that Washington, D.C. is hosting the 2026 FIFA World Cup and the 2027 NFL Draft, and "must meet the highest standards."
Time of India
27-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
In 'big, beautiful bill ', Trump accounts just a political stunt to boost baby boom?
The Republican tax bill contains flashy goodies for families with kids. The flashiest: savings accounts for children — branded Trump Accounts — created and initially funded by the Treasury Department. These will consist of $1,000 in invested assets for each American citizen born through 2028, plus whatever funds parents later add. So if you want to have a baby, hurry up! The seeding of the accounts (previously called MAGA Accounts) expires at the end of President Donald Trump's term. The president has made his goal clear: 'I want a baby boom.' House Republicans also proposed expanding the Child Tax Credit from $2,000 to $2,500; that would also expire in four years. But if more babies are the goal, these cash carrots are the wrong incentive. Claudia Goldin said it best in her recent paper, 'Babies and the Macroeconomy': 'The birth rate is … clearly determined by forces that are independent of the whims of governments.' In a 2021 review of the literature of thirty-five studies across Europe and North America, 'Can Policies Stall the Fertility Fall?,' the three authors — a statistician, a sociologist and a public health expert, all in Norway — concluded that even sizable cash benefits have a modest impact on fertility. ALSO READ: Is Trump targeting Harvard because the elite university rejected his youngest son Barron? What you need to know Live Events Instead, the authors found child care and paid leave to be more promising levers. Access to child care slightly increased both the number of children families have and the number of first-time births — especially among low- to middle-class families. Child care support may increase the fertility of stay-at-home mothers by giving their older toddlers access to care. Paid parental leave was also found to have small, but positive, effects on fertility, in particular for higher-earning parents. Unfortunately, paid leave for parents and child-care support are largely missing from the reconciliation bill, though there are a handful of renewed and expanded tax credits for businesses that provide these things. The GAO reports that these have historically been underutilized. Perhaps baby-making isn't the goal anymore. After all, Trump Accounts cannot be accessed until the kids turn 18 and are explicitly for the kids, not the parents making the babies. Perhaps a better way to view Trump Accounts is not as encouraging a baby boom, but as a broader investment in family economic well-being. ALSO READ: Did Harvard reject Barron Trump? Truth behind his college choice has sparks buzz online That would be good news. As a country, we chronically underinvest in the young in favor of the old. Parents are more pessimistic about their kids' future, according to Wall Street Journal polling, than any time in recent memory. The US is an international outlier with its high share of single parents. Labor policy still doesn't reflect the reality that in most households, all parents are working. But there are better ways to promote familial financial well-being than Trump Accounts. The same criticisms apply as when Democratic Senator Cory Booker ran for president on a platform of baby bonds: First, families need support today, not locked up funds to be used two decades from now. This is particularly true for the bottom half of the income distribution. Second, none of these savings accounts speak to each other — 529, 401k, IRA, FSA or HSA, now Trump Accounts. It can be hard to predict where you'll need the savings, and savers are penalized for withdrawing for other uses. Hence the long-time conservative push for universal savings accounts. ALSO READ: Trump's promise to make US world's 'crypto capital' to be a reality soon? Check details Third, there is still a taxpayer cost attached: a nearly $20 billion price tag when combining the costs of seeding the accounts and tax-free contributions, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. If the contribution program doesn't expire after 3.5 years, the price tag will rise by another $15 billion over the next 10 years, based on their average expected annual expenditures for 2027 and 2028. I believe we need more public investment in children, but the question remains: Who is paying for that? And fourth, two-thirds of American kids cannot read or do math at grade-level by fourth grade. This suggests that instead of an investment whose biggest expected use is higher education, children need earlier investments in high-quality tutoring to stay on track. Before sharing in the noble goal of stock ownership, let's get reading and math right. ALSO READ: This US state poised to enforce age verification on Apple, Google app stores for users under 18 To which I'd add a fifth: a four-year expiration date suggests a short-term political mindset and budget trickery much more than seeding the ground for long-run family flourishing. When it comes to supporting families, President Trump would do best to return to his roots. In his first term, he doubled the Child Tax Credit; boosted funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant, the country's primary way of delivering child-care support to low-income families; passed 12 weeks of paid parental leave for all federal workers; and proposed a universal 6-week paid leave program for all American moms. On top of this, he oversaw a time of exceptional economic growth. This go-around he seems determined to inflict tariff pain and higher costs on American families. An extra $500 in child tax credit payments per family for a few years sounds nice, until you realize that the costs of tariffs per family are currently estimated to be nearly $3,000, per the Yale Budget Lab. Moreover, the bill as drafted puts us somewhere between $3 and $4 trillion more into debt; guess who inherits that. It might not have had the snazzy Trump Account branding, but Trump's first term arguably was a much better deal for babies.
Mint
27-05-2025
- Business
- Mint
Trump Accounts? Republicans Have Had Better Ideas
The Republican tax bill contains flashy goodies for families with kids. The flashiest: savings accounts for children — branded Trump Accounts — created and initially funded by the Treasury Department. These will consist of $1,000 in invested assets for each American citizen born through 2028, plus whatever funds parents later add. So if you want to have a baby, hurry up! The seeding of the accounts expires at the end of President Donald Trump's term. The president has made his goal clear: 'I want a baby boom.' House Republicans also proposed expanding the Child Tax Credit from $2,000 to $2,500; that would also expire in four years. But if more babies are the goal, these cash carrots are the wrong incentive. Claudia Goldin said it best in her recent paper, 'Babies and the Macroeconomy': 'The birth rate is … clearly determined by forces that are independent of the whims of governments.' In a 2021 review of the literature of thirty-five studies across Europe and North America, 'Can Policies Stall the Fertility Fall?,' the three authors — a statistician, a sociologist and a public health expert, all in Norway — concluded that even sizable cash benefits have a modest impact on fertility. Instead, the authors found child care and paid leave to be more promising levers. Access to child care slightly increased both the number of children families have and the number of first-time births — especially among low- to middle-class families. Child care support may increase the fertility of stay-at-home mothers by giving their older toddlers access to care. Paid parental leave was also found to have small, but positive, effects on fertility, in particular for higher-earning parents. Unfortunately, paid leave for parents and child-care support are largely missing from the reconciliation bill, though there are a handful of renewed and expanded tax credits for businesses that provide these things. The GAO reports that these have historically been underutilized. Perhaps baby-making isn't the goal anymore. After all, Trump Accounts cannot be accessed until the kids turn 18 and are explicitly for the kids, not the parents making the babies. Perhaps a better way to view Trump Accounts is not as encouraging a baby boom, but as a broader investment in family economic well-being. That would be good news. As a country, we chronically underinvest in the young in favor of the old. Parents are more pessimistic about their kids' future, according to Wall Street Journal polling, than any time in recent memory. The US is an international outlier with its high share of single parents. Labor policy still doesn't reflect the reality that in most households, all parents are working. But there are better ways to promote familial financial well-being than Trump Accounts. The same criticisms apply as when Democratic Senator Cory Booker ran for president on a platform of baby bonds: First, families need support today, not locked up funds to be used two decades from now. This is particularly true for the bottom half of the income distribution. Second, none of these savings accounts speak to each other — 529, 401k, IRA, FSA or HSA, now Trump Accounts. It can be hard to predict where you'll need the savings, and savers are penalized for withdrawing for other uses. Hence the long-time conservative push for universal savings accounts. Third, there is still a taxpayer cost attached: a nearly $20 billion price tag when combining the costs of seeding the accounts and tax-free contributions, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. If the contribution program doesn't expire after 3.5 years, the price tag will rise by another $15 billion over the next 10 years, based on their average expected annual expenditures for 2027 and 2028. I believe we need more public investment in children, but the question remains: Who is paying for that? And fourth, two-thirds of American kids cannot read or do math at grade-level by fourth grade. This suggests that instead of an investment whose biggest expected use is higher education, children need earlier investments in high-quality tutoring to stay on track. Before sharing in the noble goal of stock ownership, let's get reading and math right. To which I'd add a fifth: a four-year expiration date suggests a short-term political mindset and budget trickery much more than seeding the ground for long-run family flourishing. When it comes to supporting families, President Trump would do best to return to his roots. In his first term, he doubled the Child Tax Credit; boosted funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant, the country's primary way of delivering child-care support to low-income families; passed 12 weeks of paid parental leave for all federal workers; and proposed a universal 6-week paid leave program for all American moms. On top of this, he oversaw a time of exceptional economic growth. This go-around he seems determined to inflict tariff pain and higher costs on American families. An extra $500 in child tax credit payments per family for a few years sounds nice, until you realize that the costs of tariffs per family are currently estimated to be nearly $3,000, per the Yale Budget Lab. Moreover, the bill as drafted puts us somewhere between $3 and $4 trillion more into debt; guess who inherits that. It might not have had the snazzy Trump Account branding, but Trump's first term arguably was a much better deal for babies. More From Bloomberg Opinion: This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. Abby McCloskey is a columnist, podcast host, and consultant. She directed domestic policy on two presidential campaigns and was director of economic policy at the American Enterprise Institute. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The Trump baby bonds might be the start of something good
Congressional Republicans' idea of giving every newborn a $1,000 investment account is an obvious political ploy that doesn't nearly make up for the damage that President Donald Trump's other policies are doing to working-class families. The proposal is half-hearted, the amount is too small and the name of the accounts is dumb. But it's still a good idea. Under the "big beautiful" spending bill passed by House Republicans early Thursday morning, every baby born from the start of this year to Dec. 31, 2028 would receive $1,000 that would be invested on their behalf in financial markets in a special new account named after Trump. The recipients could withdraw the money later in life for certain expenses such as paying for college, buying a house or starting a small business. Let's work through the objections first. First, like the "senior bonus," the so-called Trump Accounts are clearly meant to distract from the fact that the Republican bill would cut food assistance for hungry children, kick millions of Americans off Medicaid, reduce taxes on the wealthy and raise them on the poor, and blow a $3 trillion hole in the deficit, possibly leading to the end of American economic dominance. To which my response is: Yeah, and? The fact that it's an obvious political gimmick doesn't really affect whether or not it's a good idea. Neither does the fact that it's tucked into a bill that is otherwise bad. In fact, the proposal borrows the basic framework from a "baby bonds" proposal that Democratic Sen. Cory Booker and Rep. Ayanna Pressley pushed unsuccessfully throughout President Joe Biden's administration that was widely praised on the left as a way to reduce the racial wealth gap while boosting working-class families of all races. Under the Booker-Pressley proposal, every child would get $1,000 in a savings account and as much as $2,000 more each year up to age 18, depending on the family's income. By contrast, the Trump accounts only include the initial $1,000 deposit, though parents could add up to $5,000 a year of their own money up to age 18. Those seemingly minor changes make a huge difference. If a lower-income family added no money to their Trump account, after 18 years that $1,000 would have grown to around $2,000, if we assume a generous 4% rate of return. That's about enough to pay for textbooks, maybe, but not college. Even if they waited until age 30 to use it to buy a house or start a business, it would still only be around $3,000, which would cover your title fee and some other side costs, but otherwise not help much. By comparison, a poor kid with a Booker-Pressley account would have more than $50,000 at age 18 and more than $85,000 at age 30 — literally life-changing amounts of money. Not only do the proposed Trump Accounts not help poor kids, they might actually disadvantage them further. By allowing parents to contribute, Trump Accounts would end up helping wealthier families more. Assuming a family put the maximum $5,000 per year into the account, that would add up to more than $130,000 at age 18 and more than $210,000 at age 30. You can't necessarily call those life-changing amounts, however, since the only kids who end up with that much are those whose parents already had enough means to set aside $5,000 a year. It's not clear wealthy families even need this. They can already put money in 529 college savings plans, private investment accounts for minors and even custodial accounts for bonds on TreasuryDirect. The Trump Accounts would also only be available to newborns who are U.S. citizens whose parents both have Social Security numbers. (As it's written now, this only applies if the parent claiming the credit is married.) This seems clearly aimed at making it harder for immigrants to qualify — especially since the Trump administration is currently in court arguing against the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship and reportedly tried to strip Social Security numbers from thousands of immigrants. The name is also distasteful to many Democrats. Originally called MAGA Accounts (supposedly for "Money Account for Growth and Advancement," which is up there with "chai tea" and "ATM machine" for redundant names), they were renamed Trump Accounts at the last minute, sparking complaints from House Democrats that the GOP would be "screaming bloody murder" if they had tried to name savings accounts for President Barack Obama. So, to recap: The proposal would do little for poor kids and give wealthy families yet another government-approved investment account while providing some political cover for a massively regressive spending bill that will damage America's long-term future. Oh, and the $1,000 payments for newborns would stop right as Trump is leaving office. Still, I say it's a good idea. Here's why. The biggest mistake that both Republicans and Democrats make when considering a proposal from the other side is to treat it as static. Good ideas often start as bad ones, and good policies often grow out of flawed ones. When it started in 1935, Social Security didn't cover agricultural or domestic workers, which meant it disproportionately excluded African Americans. But over time, it was expanded. Today, it is more fair — and actually helps Black and Hispanic workers more due to the way benefits are structured. The four-year time limit might even be a blessing in disguise, as it gives the next president an obvious demand to "extend the Trump Accounts" while tinkering with them to make them more like the Booker-Pressley baby bonds. If they're smart, they'll even leave the Trump name on them, to make it that much more painful for Republicans to vote against the extension. The fact that they began under a Republican president will also make it easier to respond to wild claims of "socialism." Like the kids they're meant to help, the Trump baby bonds are still in their infancy. But one day, they might grow up to be something great. This article was originally published on
