"It is branding," said Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), a chief sponsor of Democrats' baby bonds bill.
When Vice President JD Vance kicked off his roadshow to sell President Donald Trump's massive tax bill in mid-July, he didn't talk about the cuts to Medicaid, the work requirements for food stamps or the myriad ways the legislation is openly harming kids and parents. Instead, he focused on a lesser-known -- and far more palatable -- provision that's tucked into the multi-trillion-dollar bill: savings accounts for babies.
"We couldn't get a single Democrat to vote for $1,000 for every newborn baby in the United States of America," Vance said in remarks at a machine shop in Pennsylvania, a preview of Republicans' push ahead of the 2026 midterms to spread the message about the law in spite of its dismal approval ratings.
These savings accounts, which Republicans have dubbed "Trump Accounts," would give every infant born within a certain time frame $1,000, starting the process of accruing interest at a young age. Much like the stimulus checks of Trump's first term, they also enable the president to associate his name with a popular idea, allowing him to use it as cover while he pushes other policies designed to hurt the poorest families.
"That's exactly what it is. It is branding," Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), the House sponsor of Democrats' longstanding and more ambitious baby bonds bill, told HuffPost. " The big ugly bill is deeply unpopular. And so they're looking for a couple of edicts that they can look to rebrand within that."
The GOP accounts could have certain benefits if implemented effectively, experts say. Namely, they provide infants with a seed fund they wouldn't otherwise have. By and large, however, they're a pale imitation of Democrats' version of the policy and designed in ways that could exacerbate wealth gaps. As Trump's Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent admitted, they might even create an opening to privatize key parts of the U.S. safety net in the long term. (The White House later clarified that the accounts aim to "supplement, not substitute" Social Security.)
"The 'Trump Accounts' create a unique opportunity for the next generation to be prosperous," White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers told HuffPost. "The compounding growth of these one-time government contributions for all American newborns will set them up for long-term success."
Republicans' framing of these accounts conveniently elides their shortcomings as well as the fact that many other provisions of the "big, beautiful bill" drastically slash benefits that families rely on, however.
" There's always a level of master manipulation in marketing," Pressley said. "Trump Accounts are not about helping everyone."
Republicans' bill outlines the contours of how the accounts will work, but their actual efficacy will depend heavily on how they're rolled out, experts say.
Broadly, the proposal gives babies who are U.S. citizens born between 2025 and 2028 a $1,000 deposit funded by the government. That money will be deposited into a savings account that these infants can access once they turn 18.
Between now and then, these children's family members and their employers can contribute up to an additional $5,000 each year, all of which will be invested in the equivalent of a mutual fund.
It's notable that more infants will now have savings accounts, experts say.
"Assuming that we can work out automatic enrollment for this pilot group... there will be millions of children who receive $1,000 in a savings account that they wouldn't have otherwise had," said Madeline Brown, a policy expert at the Urban Institute.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), a supporter of this proposal, has stressed this benefit, arguing to the Texas Tribune that the policy "makes every child a capitalist" and gives "every kid some skin in the game."
Just how impactful they are, however, will be tied to whether babies can be easily enrolled. That process needs to be automatic in order to ensure uptake, experts note. And any potential barriers to opening the account or contributing to it could deter participation.
"It will be very easy to leave some kids out if this is not thought through very carefully, and the kids that get left out are likely to be the kids that need these accounts the most," said Michael Sherraden, the founding director for Washington University in St. Louis's Center for Social Development.
The accounts are set to launch officially in 2026, and policymakers have said that infants' eligibility will depend on having a Social Security number. But one challenge is that there is no national registry for babies, said Sherraden, who noted that much of this data is recorded at the state level.
"If we're not enrolling everybody in this program, we're likely to see only higher-income people taking advantage of it," Brown warned.
A key shortcoming of these accounts is that they could deepen existing wealth gaps.
Under Democrats' previous baby bonds legislation, which Pressley introduced with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), infants would also receive $1,000 to start, then subsequent deposits from the government over time, calibrated to a family's income level.
Under this policy, children from low-income families would receive larger deposits than higher-income ones, an approach which sought to both level the playing field and guarantee that poor children would have robust nest eggs by the time they turned 18.
Kids could receive up to $2,000 in additional funds per year via the Democrats' proposal.
The Republican version does no such thing, basically reinforcing the status quo.
Because additional contributions will come from families and companies, the infants likely to see real savings growth are the ones whose parents can provide it.
"Lower-income families are going to not be able to contribute additional funds," Brown said. "You all start with $1,000 at first, but then year two, higher-income kids are getting $5,000; lower-income kids are getting zero. Times 17 additional years."
Under the Trump Accounts, a child who starts with $1,000 and no additional contributions would have about $3,500 at age 18, assuming 7% market growth,the Texas Tribunereports. That figure would be over $170,000 for a child who receives the maximum $5,000 contribution at a comparable growth rate,the publication notes.
Under the baby bonds legislation, meanwhile, a child from the lowest-income families would have about $50,000 by the time they turn 18,according to an Urban Institute analysis. Recipients would take on less student loan debt if baby bonds were implemented,that review found.
The GOP bill also doesn't account for what's known as the "benefit cliff." For many social programs, people above a certain asset threshold are cut off from benefits. That means if the money in these infant savings accounts is counted toward an individual's net worth when they turn 18, it could actually result in them receiving less social support.
"In an ironic way, a low-income [person]... that has access to this account would be disqualified from other public resources," said Darrick Hamilton, an economics professor at the New School for Social Research who helped develop baby bonds.
"Just $2,000 in net worth... can disqualify lower-income workers from critical public benefits like Supplemental Security Income or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families," added Jason Ewas, a policy expert at the Aspen Institute.
The way these accounts are taxed could cut into how much support they ultimately provide to recipients as well.
Similar to an Individual Retirement Account (IRA), funds withdrawn from the infant savings accounts prior to the holder reaching a certain age are subject to income tax as well as a penalty, with some exceptions.
Experts say alternatives like a 529 plan, which some parents already use to save for higher education and which is not subject to federal taxes if the money is used for school-related needs,could be a more favorable option.
Trump's tax bill is set to kick millions of people off Medicaid and SNAP via new work requirements,while giving wide-ranging benefits to corporations and the wealthy.
Overall, the legislation is unpopular,with polls showing that more than half of Americans oppose it.
As such, it's helpful for Trump and Republicans to have a policy they can characterize as free money for babies,critics say.
Pressley described the proposal as a "Trojan horse" and "ruse" that helped the administration look as if it's helping children and families even as it's taken other steps that do the opposite.
" These baby savings accounts, compounded by the devastating cuts in this big ugly bill to healthcare and food assistance, are just going to have families worse off," she said.