Since returning to the White House, former President Donald Trump has rolled back regulations that made childcare more affordable and proposed cuts to funding for public schools. With the midterm elections approaching and his approval ratings low, Trump has focused on a new two-month-old program aimed at children. The program, called "Trump accounts," involves the federal government giving a one-time $1,000 deposit to every newborn whose family applies. In campaign speeches this summer, Trump has highlighted these accounts as a way to gain political favor, making bold claims about their potential benefits. During a speech in Las Vegas, he said the accounts would help children "get a head start on the American dream," suggesting that the initial $1,000 could grow to as much as $1 million if the stock market performs well. The White House has also made optimistic projections, claiming that by age 18, children might have $271,000 in their accounts and by age 55, up to $13 million. The Treasury Department described the program as a way to "level the playing field" by allowing all parents to invest in their children’s future, not just wealthy families. However, many economists have criticized Trump's claims as exaggerated or misleading. Justin Wolfers, an economics professor at the University of Michigan, argued that the program is more likely to widen the wealth gap than reduce it. He called the White House's projections "ridiculous, dishonest, and misleading," noting that achieving the claimed returns would require an unrealistic 10% annual growth rate over many years. He also pointed out that the higher numbers assume parents are regularly contributing additional money to the accounts, which is more feasible for wealthier families. A White House spokesperson, Kush Desai, defended the program, stating it would help working-class children who have historically been left out of traditional investment opportunities. Desai claimed that billionaires and corporations have pledged to contribute billions to the accounts, arguing that this support would not increase inequality. However, critics like Darrick Hamilton, a professor at the New School and one of the original proponents of baby bonds, argue that the program’s benefits are too small to make a real difference for children in need. He noted that the poorest families are more likely to be borrowers than savers, meaning they are less able to contribute to the accounts. Hamilton said the program actually favors wealthier families, who can take advantage of tax breaks and contribute more to their children’s accounts, thereby increasing wealth inequality. The program also offers tax benefits for employers, allowing them to contribute $2,500 annually to a child’s account without it being taxed as income. This benefit disproportionately helps higher-income workers, who are in higher tax brackets. Meanwhile, the initial $1,000 deposits for newborns are set to expire after Trump’s second term, while the more lucrative tax benefits for the wealthy are intended to last indefinitely. Critics argue that this structure aligns with broader Republican efforts to shift responsibility for social safety nets to the private sector, potentially undermining programs like Social Security.