Parents Refuse $1,000 Trump Accounts Over the Name on Them

Nearly 70 million Trump accounts have been created through automatic enrollment, and more than $8 billion has already been deposited nationwide — yet some parents are refusing to claim a cent of it. White House spokesman Matthew Middleton confirmed the enrollment figure to Fortune, while a Treasury official supplied the deposit total. The gap between uptake and enthusiasm is the story.

Israel Anthem, a 38-year-old father from Nashville, will not set up an account for his 14-month-old daughter. "I'll put $1,000 of my own money in an account before I do that," he told Fortune. His objection is not the mechanics. It is the branding.

"I don't want to put my daughter's name on something attached to Trump for the rest of her life," he said. That sentence does more work than any policy explanation in explaining his choice.

What are Trump accounts, exactly?

Created under Trump's 2025 tax-and-spending law, Trump accounts is a type of individual retirement account for children. A one-time $1,000 federal contribution is available to eligible U.S. citizens born between 2025 and 2028 who have valid Social Security numbers. Parents, relatives, and employers can add money, generally subject to a combined annual limit of $5,000 during childhood.

The funds go into qualifying low-cost stock index funds. Returns are not guaranteed. Withdrawals are generally restricted until the calendar year the child turns 18, when traditional IRA rules apply — including potential taxes and early-withdrawal penalties.

In plain terms: the state gives eligible newborns a one-time $1,000, caps top-ups at $5,000 a year, and locks the money until adulthood.

How many families have actually claimed the money?

Enrollment is not the same as claiming. Parents must still claim the accounts to manage them and request the $1,000 federal contribution for an eligible child. As of July, Treasury data showed more than 6.5 million families had signed up, including more than 1.5 million children eligible for the $1,000.

That means fewer than a quarter of the automatically created accounts involve a family that has completed the claiming step. The White House has not publicly addressed that gap.

Middleton defended the program's purpose: "With Trump Accounts, President Trump has secured a signature economic achievement designed to help every American child build savings and support a stronger financial future."

Employers also have money riding on participation. By August, more than 50 companies had committed to contributing to Trump accounts for employees' children, according to the Treasury Department. Bank of America, BlackRock, and Charles Schwab have pledged to match the $1,000 contribution. For some parents, the corporate backing does not change the core problem: the name attached to their child.

Why does free money feel personal?

Anthem said he understands the numbers. "I understand the logistics of it. I understand the math of it, but what I do not understand is Trump's willingness to do something so supposedly generous."

Scott Rick, a University of Michigan marketing professor who studies financial decisions, frames this as mental accounting at work. Labels and earmarks shape how people feel about money and how they use it, he said.

"When money is psychologically tainted, we often avoid it," Rick told Fortune. "For many, the $1,000 Trump account contribution is the fruit of a poisonous tree."

Deciding on a child's behalf adds another layer. Parents weigh what they can provide financially against the values they want to pass down. "How could I possibly make my child an implicit Trump supporter? How could I possibly deprive my child of free money, especially in this economy? Good parents could ask both questions," Rick said.

Some parents accept the money despite sharing the objections, because they cannot afford to pass it up. Others separate their politics from the payout. "Some people are just more capable of 'separating the art from the artist,' so to speak," Rick said. "Indeed, there is some rationality to accepting the windfall here."

Is the idea actually new?

No. In 2018, Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey proposed giving every American newborn a $1,000 account, followed by annual government deposits of up to $2,000 depending on family income. His American Opportunity Accounts proposal — so-called "baby bonds" — targeted wealth inequality.

Booker has since backed Trump accounts, joining Republican Sen. Ted Cruz in a letter urging Fortune 1000 CEOs to contribute. The senators wrote that the accounts "ensure that every American child is an immediate shareholder in America's largest companies."

What are other parents doing?

Online forums show the split. "Free money is free money," one Reddit user wrote in the NewParents subreddit, adding that Trump-supporting relatives were welcome to contribute; the commenter's own savings would go into a state 529 college savings account instead.

Another Reddit commenter planned to open an account for their son, citing their own experience of still paying off college and postgraduate loans at nearly 40. "I see it as a benefit for my child rather than anything political," the commenter wrote. "I wouldn't care whose name was on the account, but that's just me."

Anthem is not persuadable on the math. Even with the financial pressures of parenthood, he would rather save his own money than accept a benefit tied to a president he opposes. "We'll find money other ways," he said.

His stance is a rounding error in a program covering tens of millions of accounts. But with more than 60 million auto-enrolled accounts still unclaimed, the rollout's real test is whether parents who dislike the label take the money anyway.