SHAMELESS BRANDING ASIDE, “Trump Accounts,” the new program that gives every baby in America access to some savings, is generally benign, and maybe even useful. But Donald Trump being Donald Trump, he can’t help but taint an otherwise inoffensive concept with a bit of good old-fashioned corruption. Or at least, corruption-adjacent activity.

In this case, our president is helping rich donors offload overvalued stocks onto children, who are forced to hold the stocks for five years whether they want to or not.

There’s a host of reasons why this could prove problematic. But before we get to that, it’s worth explaining what Trump Accounts are and what they’re supposed to do.

Last year’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” created a new category of tax-deferred savings accounts that would be available to every child in America. For newborns at least, the federal government would seed those accounts with an initial $1,000. Versions of this proposal had been kicking around D.C. for some time, usually called something like “child saving accounts” or “baby bonds.”

When our Eponym-in-Chief decided to slap his own name on the program, that of course polarized some Dems against it. But the basic concept has carried bipartisan support in the past, finding champions in lawmakers as far apart as Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

The bleeding-heart left generally likes the idea of “baby bonds” because they make it possible for even the poorest kids to have a little bit of savings, which those kids could draw on in adulthood to buy a house, pay tuition, or fund whatever other purposes their richer counterparts might use a regular individual retirement account for.¹

“The idea was to add wealth to the social contract,” explained Ray Boshara, a senior policy adviser at the Aspen Institute. “Wealth is as important as income for resilience and economic mobility.”²

Meanwhile, the rock-ribbed right liked that the accounts were universal—that is, not specifically targeted to poor moochers and takers, and instead available to everyone. Republicans have also argued that giving children a taste of the stock market might make them more financially literate and pro-business—and, crucially, more hostile to lefty ideas like corporate tax hikes.

“We are creating a whole new generation of capitalists,” Cruz declared during an Oval Office event this week celebrating the Trump Accounts rollout. Trump likewise said that his namesake program would keep impressionable young tots from falling for “communism.”

There were some problems with the original design of the Trump Accounts, however. The main one was that families had to opt in.

That meant wealthier parents were more likely to benefit from the program than lower-income ones, which could, in turn, worsen the wealth gap. That’s because richer families have more financial flexibility (not to mention tax advisers giving them guidance) to open accounts, claim the $1,000 from Uncle Sam, and continue socking money away. This has long been the case with 529 plans, a tax-advantaged way to help pay for educational expenses that is disproportionately used by higher-income families.³

To its credit, the Trump administration fixed that recently, by auto-enrolling every eligible child in America. As a result, virtually overnight, the number of kids enrolled in Trump Accounts shot up from fewer than 8 million (the group whose parents were savvy enough to sign up) to now more than 70 million.

Families still have to do a bit of work⁴ to “claim” their $1,000 seed money from Uncle Sam, which every U.S.-citizen baby born in 2025 through 2028 is eligible for. But the accounts are there, in a group trust.

SOON AFTER CONGRESS created Trump Accounts, philanthropists and employers began pledging contributions to kids around the country. Dell Technologies founder Michael Dell and his wife, Susan, for instance, made a $6.25 billion commitment last December; the money was originally set to go to 25 million American children under age 10 living in zip codes with median family incomes below $150,000 (the cutoff was later changed to $118,000). Investors Ray Dalio and Brad Gerstner have made commitments, too.

Are pledges like this motivated by pure altruism, or are they an effort to ingratiate donors with Trump? Hard to say; maybe some combination. But whatever the motivation, at least the kids were getting some cash, invested in a plain-vanilla index fund.

But last week, the Trump administration