Sometimes politics gets so partisan that people stop asking the most basic question: “Is this actually good for the people I’m supposed to represent?” That’s the question swirling around Rep. Bennie Thompson after the Mississippi Democrat encouraged Americans to steer clear of the new Trump Accounts program, a savings initiative created to help children build […]

Sometimes politics gets so partisan that people stop asking the most basic question: “Is this actually good for the people I’m supposed to represent?”

That’s the question swirling around Rep. Bennie Thompson after the Mississippi Democrat encouraged Americans to steer clear of the new Trump Accounts program, a savings initiative created to help children build financial assets before they reach adulthood.

The timing was hard to miss.

On Monday, President Donald Trump announced that more than six million eligible children had already been enrolled in the program, with the first round of federal funding beginning this week.

Then came Thompson’s response.

“It’s safe to say, I would pass on a Trump account,” he wrote on social media. “Trump University already taught us what happens when his name is on the brochure. Does a $25 million settlement ring a bell?”

The post referenced Trump University, the real estate education business that closed in 2010 and later became the subject of civil litigation. Trump agreed to a $25 million settlement while denying wrongdoing.

Advertisement

Whether that comparison fits the current program is now part of the political debate.

Unlike Trump University, Trump Accounts are a federally authorized savings program created under last summer’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” Eligible children born between 2025 and 2028 receive a $1,000 government-funded contribution after an account is opened on their behalf.

That’s the key detail: families have to enroll to receive the initial deposit.

From there, the accounts can continue growing over time through additional private contributions from parents, grandparents, employers, charitable organizations, churches, friends, and others, subject to annual contribution limits established under the law.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has made no secret of how highly the administration views the program.

“Trump Accounts, I believe, are the most important benefit for young people since the GI Bill,” Bessent said in late May.

He also encouraged eligible families to sign up through the program’s official website, noting that millions of children had already been enrolled.

Advertisement

Support for the initiative hasn’t come only from Washington.

In December, Dell Technologies founder Michael Dell and his wife, Susan, announced that their charitable organizations would contribute $250 to the accounts of roughly 25 million children who were born before the federal eligibility window. According to CNBC, those donations will target ZIP codes with median household incomes of $150,000 or less.

Other major companies, including Visa, Comcast, Uber, and Charles Schwab, have also announced plans to participate through additional contributions, according to the White House.

The numbers can become substantial over time.

Axios has reported that families may contribute up to $5,000 annually, with certain employer contributions receiving favorable tax treatment.

CNN business reporter David Goldman noted that if families consistently maximize those contributions over 18 years, the account could grow to roughly a quarter of a million dollars.

“If you do max out your contributions, you’re talking about some really serious money — about a quarter million dollars by the time your child is 18,” Goldman said.

Once beneficiaries reach adulthood, the money can generally be used for purposes such as college tuition, vocational training, purchasing a first home, starting a business, or certain retirement-related investments. Withdrawals for non-qualified purposes may trigger taxes and a 10 percent penalty.

Thompson’s criticism has drawn particular attention because of the district he represents.

Mississippi’s 2nd Congressional District remains one of the poorest districts in the country, with household incomes well below the national median and a poverty rate significantly higher than the U.S. average. For many families, supporters argue, even a modest government-funded investment combined with years of additional contributions could represent a meaningful financial opportunity.