President Trump’s new proposal to create so-called “Trump Accounts” — $1,000-seeded investment accounts for babies born during a set window of his term — is being sold as a way to kickstart generational savings and get kids invested in capitalism from day one. The White House and Republican lawmakers have pushed the plan as part of a larger domestic package, promising automatic enrollment for qualifying newborns and a government seed contribution to be invested in low-cost index funds.

Here’s how it would work in practical terms: the Treasury would open accounts for eligible children, place a $1,000 government deposit into an index fund, and allow parents or others to add up to $5,000 per year while a guardian manages the assets until the child reaches adulthood. The accounts are structured to grow tax-deferred with limited withdrawal rules early on, aiming to encourage long-term saving rather than short-term spending.

Private industry and big-name philanthropists have already lined up to help, which should make conservatives sit up and take notice — Michael Dell and other corporate leaders pledged billions and CEO roundtables at the White House signaled Wall Street’s eagerness to participate. That private buy-in is exactly the kind of public-private civic spirit that can amplify good policy, but it also raises questions about which firms will profit from managing these accounts.

Make no mistake: conservatives should applaud any policy that nudges families toward savings and investment rather than dependency. Planting a modest seed in a child’s financial future plays to the American values of hard work, thrift, and opportunity — and it could lead to real gains if families commit to contributing and leaving the money to compound. This is not about government handouts so much as a nudge toward private ownership of wealth for the next generation.

But the program also carries legitimate red flags that can’t be glossed over. Bureaucracy, political branding of accounts, unclear rules about eligibility and interaction with student aid, and the inevitability of Wall Street seeking lucrative management roles mean conservatives must demand strict limits, transparency, and market-friendly implementation. Reuters and other analysts have pointed out unanswered compliance and operational questions that need fixing before anyone treats this as a done deal.

There’s also the simple policy test: is this the best use of taxpayer money to broaden wealth, or a politically timed giveaway that will mostly benefit families already inclined to save? Alternatives like expanding tax-preferred 529s, encouraging employer matches, or incentivizing private savings through deregulatory reforms could achieve more without expanding federal control over more Americans’ money. Bankers and planners have noted the comparisons to 529s and custodial accounts; conservatives should weigh those options carefully.

If Republicans are going to champion this, then do it the right way: cap government exposure, allow true portability and low fees, insist on competitive providers so taxpayers aren’t subsidizing Wall Street windfalls, and include a sunset or pilot evaluation so citizens can see results. Conservatives can support solutions that seed opportunity while still fighting the expansion of a permanent federal entitlement. The goal must always be liberty, family flourishing, and the chance for every child to build real, private wealth — not another program that grows government power under the guise of charity.