The Dictatorship

The ‘Trump Accounts’ have a dumb name. But they’re a good idea anyway.

Published

10 months ago

May 27, 2025

The ‘Trump Accounts’ have a dumb name. But they’re a good idea anyway.

Congressional Republicans’ idea of giving every newborn a $1,000 investment account is an obvious political ploy that doesn’t nearly make up for the damage that President Donald Trump’s other policies are doing to working-class families. The proposal is half-hearted, the amount is too small and the name of the accounts is unecessary.

But it’s still a good idea.

Under the “big beautiful” spending bill passed by House Republicans early Thursday morning, every baby born from the start of this year to Dec. 31, 2028 would receive $1,000 that would be invested on their behalf in financial markets in a special new account named after Trump.

The recipients could withdraw the money later in life for certain expenses such as paying for college, buying a house or starting a small business.

Let’s work through the objections first. First, like the “senior bonus,” the so-called Trump Accounts are clearly meant to distract from the fact that the Republican bill would cut food assistance for hungry childrenkick millions of Americans off Medicaidreduce taxes on the wealthy and raise them on the poor, and blow a $3 trillion hole in the deficitpossibly leading to the end of American economic dominance.

To which my response is: Yeah, and?

The fact that it’s an obvious political gimmick doesn’t really affect whether or not it’s a good idea. Neither does the fact that it’s tucked into a bill that is otherwise bad. In fact, the proposal borrows the basic framework from a “baby bonds” proposal that Democratic Sen. Cory Booker and Rep. Ayanna Pressley pushed unsuccessfully throughout President Joe Biden’s administration that was widely praised on the left as a way to reduce the racial wealth gap while boosting working-class families of all races.

Under the Booker-Pressley proposal, every child would get $1,000 in a savings account and as much as $2,000 more each year up to age 18, depending on the family’s income. By contrast, the Trump accounts only include the initial $1,000 deposit, though parents could add up to $5,000 a year of their own money up to age 18.

Those seemingly minor changes make a huge difference.

If a lower-income family added no money to their Trump account, after 18 years that $1,000 would have grown to around $2,000, if we assume a generous 4% rate of return. That’s about enough to pay for textbooks, maybe, but not college. Even if they waited until age 30 to use it to buy a house or start a business, it would still only be around $3,000, which would cover your title fee and some other side costs, but otherwise not help much.

By comparison, a poor kid with a Booker-Pressley account would have more than $50,000 at age 18 and more than $85,000 at age 30 — literally life-changing amounts of money.

Not only do the proposed Trump Accounts not help poor kids, they might actually disadvantage them further.

By allowing parents to contribute, Trump Accounts would end up helping wealthier families more. Assuming a family put the maximum $5,000 per year into the account, that would add up to more than $130,000 at age 18 and more than $210,000 at age 30. You can’t necessarily call those life-changing amounts, however, since the only kids who end up with that much are those whose parents already had enough means to set aside $5,000 a year.

It’s not clear wealthy families even need this. They can already put money in 529 college savings plans private investment accounts for minors and even custodial accounts for bonds on TreasuryDirect.

The Trump Accounts would also only be available to newborns who are U.S. citizens whose parents both have Social Security numbers. (As it’s written now, this only applies if the parent claiming the credit is married.) This seems clearly aimed at making it harder for immigrants to qualify — especially since the Trump administration is currently in court arguing against the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship and reportedly tried to strip Social Security numbers from thousands of immigrants.

The name is also distasteful to many Democrats. Originally called MAGA Accounts (supposedly for “Money Account for Growth and Advancement,” which is up there with “chai tea” and “ATM machine” for redundant names), they were renamed Trump Accounts at the last minute, sparking complaints from House Democrats that the GOP would be “screaming bloody murder” if they had tried to name savings accounts for President Barack Obama.

So, to recap: The proposal would do little for poor kids and give wealthy families yet another government-approved investment account while providing some political cover for a massively regressive spending bill that will damage America’s long-term future. Oh, and the $1,000 payments for newborns would stop right as Trump is leaving office.

Still, I say it’s a good idea. Here’s why.

The biggest mistake that both Republicans and Democrats make when considering a proposal from the other side is to treat it as static. Good ideas often start as bad ones, and good policies often grow out of flawed ones. When it started in 1935, Social Security didn’t cover agricultural or domestic workers, which meant it disproportionately excluded African Americans. But over time, it was expanded. Today, it is more fair — and actually helps Black and Hispanic workers more due to the way benefits are structured.

The four-year time limit might even be a blessing in disguise, as it gives the next president an obvious demand to “extend the Trump Accounts” while tinkering with them to make them more like the Booker-Pressley baby bonds. If they’re smart, they’ll even leave the Trump name on them, to make it that much more painful for Republicans to vote against the extension. The fact that they began under a Republican president will also make it easier to respond to wild claims of “socialism.”

Like the kids they’re meant to help, the Trump baby bonds are still in their infancy. But one day, they might grow up to be something great.

Ryan Teague Beckwith

Ryan Teague Beckwith is a newsletter editor for BLN. He has previously worked for such outlets as Time magazine and Bloomberg News. He teaches journalism at Georgetown University’s School of Continuing Studies and is the creator of Your First Byline.

The Dictatorship

Right-wing Muslim activist resigns from Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission

Published

3 hours ago

March 17, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Right-wing Muslim activist resigns from Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission

Mar. 16, 2026, 5:18 PM EDT

President Donald Trump’s so-called Religious Liberty Commission, which is filled with right-wing zealotsappears to be coming apart at the seams.

Last week’s resignation of Sameerah Munshi, formerly the only Muslim woman selected as one of the commission’s advisers, underscores the religious divisions that are causing disarray for the panel and the conservative movement more broadly.

Munshi is a conservative activist who has advocated for allowing parents to opt out of lesson plans related to LGBTQ+ issues, a stance the White House has praised for its rejection of “radical gender ideology.” She said her resignation was due to two things: the commission’s expulsion of conservative activist Carrie Prejean Boller and the Trump administration’s war with Iran.

I recently wrote about how Boller’s removal, which followed a heated argument at a commission hearing over antisemitism, has fueled allegations of anti-Catholicism within the MAGA movement. Boller recently appeared on an episode of Tucker Carlson’s podcast for a chummy chat about her removal. And Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., requested last week that the House Oversight and Judiciary committees review her ouster.

In addition to that, Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission is being sued over its lack of diversity. (The White House has said the panel is intended to reflect a “diversity of faith traditions, professional backgrounds and viewpoints.”)

So Munshi’s resignation is just the latest negative publicity for the commission.

“I resign in protest of two deeply troubling developments: the official removal of Carrie Prejean Boller for her deeply held beliefs about Palestine and the federal government’s illegal war against Iran, undertaken without clear constitutional or congressional authorization,” Munshi wrote on Substack.

“Ultimately, I will have to stand before God and answer to Him for my role in this commission,” she added. “I ask His forgiveness if I have legitimized their evil or the evil of this administration in any way. I ask Him to keep my intentions pure and to guide me toward paths that bring true benefit to my community.”

Boller’s removal has also helped fuel right-wing antipathy toward the Rev. Paula White, who Boller has said was behind a “witch hunt” that led to her ouster. During their conversation, Boller and Carlson took turns bashing White, a controversial preacher of the prosperity gospel who has served as religious adviser to Trump.

Some evangelicals in the MAGA movement were apoplectic when White was chosen to lead the White House Faith Office. And now it appears the chickens have come home to roost as her involvement with Trump’s White House threatens the MAGA movement’s religious coalition.

Ja’han Jones is an MS NOW opinion blogger. He previously wrote The ReidOut Blog.

The Dictatorship

Monday’s Mini-Report, 3.16.26

Published

4 hours ago

March 17, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Today’s edition of quick hits.

* A big loss for RFK Jr.: “A federal judge on Monday blocked key parts of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s effort to reshape U.S. vaccine policy, including a move to reduce the number of shots routinely recommended for children.”

* After Minnesota, it was clear that Bovino’s professional future was not bright: “Border Patrol official Greg Bovino, most widely recognized for leading the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, will retire at the end of the month, CBS News reported, citing two sources directly familiar with his decision.”

* It’s not just oil: “The war with Iran is driving up more than gasoline prices. It is beginning to hit semiconductors, medical imaging, backyard gardens and even children’s party balloons.”

* In the Middle East: “At least four Palestinians, including two boys and a woman pregnant with twins, were killed Sunday by an Israeli airstrike in the war-torn Gaza Strip, hospital authorities said.”

* In Ukraine: “A combined missile and drone attack on the Kyiv region killed at least four people and wounded at least 15 overnight into Saturday, according to the head of the regional administration for the Ukrainian capital.”

* Whether the White House understands this or not, moves like these are likely to push consumer prices higher: “Some 200,000 immigrant truck drivers will begin to lose their commercial driver’s licenses as they expire under a new Trump administration rule that takes effect Monday.”

* Small gestures can have a significant meaning: “A temporarily new-issued dime that commemorates America’s 250th anniversary is drawing criticism for its lack of olive branches — a symbol of peace. Instead, the back of the dime showcases the Great Seal of the United States, featuring a bald eagle, but it’s clutching only arrows, a symbol of war, and lacks the traditional olive branch in its other talon.”

* I wish reports like these were less common: “The University of Florida’s College Republicans chapter was disbanded after a finding that some of its members had violated a statewide organization’s rules, including making an antisemitic gesture.”

* You mean presidents can’t change federal laws through largely symbolic executive orders? “The Justice Department on Friday moved to dismiss charges against a veteran who set an American flag on fire across the street from the White House following an executive order seeking to crack down on flag burning.”

* Best wishes for a speedy recovery: “White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles has breast cancer but will stay in her role as she gets treatment, President Donald Trump announced Monday.”

See you tomorrow.

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

The Dictatorship

Trump is failing at the business of war

Published

7 hours ago

March 17, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Mar. 16, 2026, 7:49 PM EDT

ByNicholas Grossman

The Iran was is exposing President Donald Trump’s unfitness for national leadership. The lie-filled bluster and escalation he relied on to succeed in business and domestic politics aren’t workingand the situation is out of his control. The world is interconnected and other people get a say, including oil companies and energy markets. But Trump never understood that, and since he has no other moves, he’s kept doubling down despite no plausible path to victory, making things worse.

With Venezuela, Trump said he attacked to take oilequating his personal rapaciousness with national interest. After U.S. special operations forces ousted Venezuelan president Nicolas MaduroTrump found the rest of the Venezuelan regime more pliable, including now-interim President Delcy Rodriguez, and told U.S. energy companies to go get Venezuela’s oil.

To address this crisis of his own making, Trump tried saying the war is almost over and the U.S. already won.

Except those companies didn’t want it. Which shouldn’t have been a surprise. Venezuela’s oil deposits are dirty, needing considerable refinement, and drilling isn’t profitable unless oil is priced higher than it was at the time. The infrastructure is poor, and U.S. companies would have to spend billions developing it. And the security situation was volatile after the U.S. military overthrew the national leader. Oil is flammable, and platforms would be a target if an insurgency develops.

But apparently it was a surprise to the White House. Trump berated energy executivesbut that didn’t work. They won’t throw away money just because he told them to.

With the Iran war, Trump is trying to bully not only energy companies, but the entire global energy market. Except the war is disrupting supply, making prices rise no matter what he says.

Trump ordered the U.S. military to attack Iran, and hasn’t articulated a clear goalbut did issue existential threats. At various times he’s called for regime change, told Iranians to overthrow the government, and demanded “unconditional surrender.”

And this comes after Trump reneged on the Iran nuclear deal without cause in his first term. That showed Iran that the United States in general, and Trump specifically, cannot be trusted to honor any agreement, and will react to concessions by demanding more.

In response to the U.S.-Israeli attack, Iran played its biggest card, closing the Strait of Hormuz. It’s a narrow choke point at the end of the Persian Gulf, and a kink in the waterway leaves it exposed to a lot of Iran’s coastline. About 20% of the world’s oil passes through Hormuz, and it isn’t hard for Iran to stop the traffic.

Iran can’t prevent U.S. and Israeli forces from flying over the gulf, and they probably couldn’t keep the U.S. Navy out of it, but to close the strait, they don’t need to. They only have to make shipping companies afraid to sail, and insurance companies think the risk of insuring the ships is too high. With threats, a few attacks on tankers, and now possibly sea mines, Iran has.

Again, this shouldn’t have been a surprise. For example, “Closing Time: Assessing the Iranian Threat to the Strait of Hormuz” by Caitlin Talmadge appeared in the leading journal International Security in 2008.

There’s no one to sue, no rules to manipulate, just the hard realities of resource shortages and war.

To address this crisis of his own making, Trump tried saying the war is almost over and the U.S. already won. It made the oil price drop back down for a bit, but as U.S.-Israeli bombardment continued and market disruptions got worse, it rose again.

Trump tried telling ships to traverse the Strait of Hormuz, but most wouldn’t, and a few who did exploded, presumably at Iran’s hand.

He tried releasing oil from America’s strategic reserve, and some other countries did from theirs. But that’s a Band-Aid on a gaping wound, and had little impact.

Then he tried bombing Kharg, an island in the gulf that Iran uses for oil exports. The apparent logic is that hindering Iran’s shipping will get Iran to stop blocking everyone else’s.

That recalls one of Trump’s go-to moves in business: the bad faith lawsuit. He’d break a contract, screw someone over, and dare them to sue him. Or would initiate legal action himself. Either way, he bet that he’d have more resources and greater tolerance for a protracted legal fight, and the other party would settle even when the facts were on their side.

That won’t work with Iran.

By making the threat existential, Trump set the bar for the Iranian regime at survival, and incentivized them to use whatever leverage they have. America’s military can overwhelm Iran’s, and is doing a lot more damage to Iran than the Iranians can do back. But even without its main source of revenue, Iran can keep up a defensive war for a while. Especially since the only thing it really needs to do is keep getting some shots off, such as with relatively cheap, domestically-produced Shahed dronesor small boats laden with explosives. The U.S. probably can’t stop that by force without a large ground invasion and indefinite occupation of Iran’s gulf coastline—a massive, costly undertaking—and maybe not even then.

Much of the time when Trump was in the private sector and messed up, his rich dad bailed him out or he’d declare bankruptcy. Instead of holding equity or debt, Trump would have the business pay him a salary and bonusesso that money was gone when the company went under, and his partners and contractors would take most of the losses.

When Trump stiffed lenders, there was usually someone else he could get to give him money. That’s how the Trump Organization ended up with a lot of Russian financing — by that point, just about everyone else wouldn’t touch him.

Now he’s done that to America. After a year of Trump denigratingthreatening, and tariffing U.S. alliesno one is willing to help rescue the U.S. from a mess of its own making, no matter how much he browbeats them.

Trump started something that quickly spiraled and seems out of ideas. There’s no one to sue, no rules to manipulate, just the hard realities of resource shortages and war.

And there’s a good chance Iran can tolerate being bombed more than the U.S. can tolerate a rapidly rising oil price and the economic damage it causes.