SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
national women's law center
Billionaire-Funded ‘Trump Accounts’ for Kids Slammed as 'Another Tax Shelter' for the Rich
"If the White House were serious about supporting families struggling with the costs of living, it would be advocating for investments in childcare," said one children's advocate.
Dec 02, 2025
After Silicon Valley CEO Michael Dell and his wife, philanthropist Susan Dell, announced Tuesday their plan to invest $6.25 billion in seed money in individual investment accounts for 25 million American children, adding to the number of kids who would receive so-called "Trump Accounts" that were included in the Republican spending bill this year, advocates acknowledged that a direct cash investment could feasibly help some families.
But the National Women's Law Center (NWLC) was among those wondering whether the Dells' investment of $6.25 billion—a fraction of their $148 billion fortune—would ultimately benefit wealthy investors far more.
“While we support direct investments in families, the Trump Accounts being hailed by the White House are a policy solution that doesn’t meet most families’ needs,” said Amy Matsui, the vice president of income security and child care at NWLC. “As currently structured, these accounts will just become another tax shelter for the wealthiest, while the overwhelming majority of American families, who are struggling to cover basic costs like food, childcare, and housing, will be hard pressed to find the extra money that could turn the seed money into a meaningful investment."
The Dells, who are behind Dell Technologies, announced the investment plan months after President Donald Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill into law. The tax and spending law includes a provision that would start an investment account for every US citizen child born between January 2025-December 2028, with a $1,000 investment from the US government.
As Jezebel reported, the couple's contribution would got to an additional 25 million children, up to age 10, who were born prior to the 2025 cut-off date for the initial Trump Accounts.
"Around 80% of children born between 2016-2024 would theoretically qualify, although there are cutoffs based on household income: Applying families would have to live in ZIP codes where the median household income is less than $150,000 per year," wrote Jim Vorel.
In the corporate press, the Dells were applauded for making what they called the largest single private charitable donation to US children, but Vorel questioned the real-world impact of "a gift of $250, thrown vaguely in the direction of millions of American families by members of our billionaire ruling class."
"What can that money realistically do in terms of providing for a child’s future?" he wrote. "Is it the seed that is going to allow them to go to college, to buy a house some day? Does that really seem likely? Or are we primarily talking about billionaires running PR campaigns for a president who recently hit new second term lows in his overall approval numbers?"
The success of the individual investment accounts hinges on whether Americans and their employers—who can contribute up to $2,500 per year without counting it as taxable income—will be able to consistently and meaningfully invest money in the accounts until their children turn 18, considering that about a quarter of US households are living paycheck to paycheck, according to a recent poll.
"Do you know many families in 2025 that would describe themselves as having a spare $5,000 per year to immediately start investing in a government-backed investment account, even if that might be relatively sound financial strategy? Or are the families in your orbit already scraping to get by, without being able to commit much attention to investing in the future?" asked Vorel, adding that the artificial intelligence "bubble" is widely expected to soon burst and drag the stock market in which Trump is urging families to invest "into a deep pit of despair."
"As is so often the case, the families most benefited by the concept of Trump Accounts will be those ones who are already on the best financial footing, aka the wealthiest Americans," he wrote.
Jonathan Cohn of Progressive Mass was among those who said the Dells' investment only served to demonstrate how "they should pay more in taxes" to ensure all US children can benefit from public, not private, investment in education, healthcare, and other social supports.
"The government should not be funding only what can secure the sympathies of erratic rich people," said Cohn.
The NWLC argued the Trump Accounts are an example of the White House's embrace of "pronatalism"—the belief that the government should incentivize Americans to have more children—but fall short of being a policy that would actually make a measurable positive impact on families.
“In the end, this policy mirrors the rest of the law: another giveaway to the richest Americans that leaves everyone else further behind," said Matsui. "If the White House were serious about supporting families struggling with the costs of living, it would be advocating for investments in childcare, an expanded Child Tax Credit, and undoing the historic cuts to SNAP and Medicaid.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Report Warns of Anti-Family Pronatalist Movement's Growing Influence on Trump White House
"Underneath shiny motherhood medals and promises of baby bonuses is a movement intent on elevating white supremacist ideology and forcing women out of the workplace," said one advocate.
Aug 13, 2025
The Trump administration's push for Americans to have more children has been well documented, from Vice President JD Vance's insults aimed at "childless cat ladies" to officials' meetings with "pronatalist" advocates who want to boost U.S. birth rates, which have been declining since 2007.
But a report released by the National Women's Law Center (NWLC) on Wednesday details how the methods the White House have reportedly considered to convince Americans to procreate moremay be described by the far right as "pro-family," but are actually being pushed by a eugenicist, misogynist movement that has little interest in making it any easier to raise a family in the United States.
The proposals include bestowing a "National Medal of Motherhood" on women who have more than six children, giving a $5,000 "baby bonus" to new parents, and prioritizing federal projects in areas with high birth rates.
"Underneath shiny motherhood medals and promises of baby bonuses is a movement intent on elevating white supremacist ideology and forcing women out of the workplace," said Emily Martin, chief program officer of the National Women's Law Center.
The report describes how "Silicon Valley tech elites" and traditional conservatives who oppose abortion rights and even a woman's right to work outside the home have converged to push for "preserving the traditional family structure while encouraging women to have a lot of children."
With pronatalists often referring to "declining genetic quality" in the U.S. and promoting the idea that Americans must produce "good quality children," in the words of evolutionary psychologist Diana Fleischman, the pronatalist movement "is built on racist, sexist, and anti-immigrant ideologies."
If conservatives are concerned about population loss in the U.S., the report points out, they would "make it easier for immigrants to come to the United States to live and work. More immigrants mean more workers, which would address some of the economic concerns raised by declining birth rates."
But pronatalists "only want to see certain populations increase (i.e., white people), and there are many immigrants who don't fit into that narrow qualification."
The report, titled "Baby Bonuses and Motherhood Medals: Why We Shouldn't Trust the Pronatalist Movement," describes how President Donald Trump has enlisted a "pronatalist army" that's been instrumental both in pushing a virulently anti-immigrant, mass deportation agenda and in demanding that more straight couples should marry and have children, as the right-wing policy playbook Project 2025 demands.
Trump's former adviser and benefactor, billionaire tech mogul Elon Musk, has spoken frequently about the need to prevent a collapse of U.S. society and civilization by raising birth rates, and has pushed misinformation fearmongering about birth control.
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy proposed rewarding areas with high birth rates by prioritizing infrastructure projects, and like Vance has lobbed insults at single women while also deriding the use of contraception.
The report was released days after CNN detailed the close ties the Trump administration has with self-described Christian nationalist pastor Doug Wilson, who heads the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, preaches that women should not vote, and suggested in an interview with correspondent Pamela Brown that women's primary function is birthing children, saying they are "the kind of people that people come out of."
Wilson has ties to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, whose children attend schools founded by the pastor and who shared the video online with the tagline of Wilson's church, "All of Christ for All of Life."
But the NWLC noted, no amount of haranguing women over their relationship status, plans for childbearing, or insistence that they are primarily meant to stay at home with "four or five children," as Wilson said, can reverse the impact the Trump administration's policies have had on families.
"While the Trump administration claims to be pursuing a pro-baby agenda, their actions tell a different story," the report notes. "Rather than advancing policies that would actually support families—like lowering costs, expanding access to housing and food, or investing in child care—they've prioritized dismantling basic need supports, rolling back longstanding civil rights protections, and ripping away people's bodily autonomy."
The report was published weeks after Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law—making pregnancy more expensive and more dangerous for millions of low-income women by slashing Medicaid funding and "endangering the 42 million women and children" who rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for their daily meals.
While demanding that women have more children, said the NWLC, Trump has pushed an "anti-women, anti-family agenda."
Martin said that unlike the pronatalist movement, "a real pro-family agenda would include protecting reproductive healthcare, investing in childcare as a public good, promoting workplace policies that enable parents to succeed, and ensuring that all children have the resources that they need to thrive not just at birth, but throughout their lives."
"The administration's deep hostility toward these pro-family policies," said Martin, "tells you all that you need to know about pronatalists' true motives.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Unconscionable': Trump Admin Blasted for Plan to Ban Abortions at VA Hospitals
"Those who fight for all our freedom must have the most basic freedom to control their own bodies and futures—and this rule robs them of it," said the head of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Aug 04, 2025
Advocates for veterans, reproductive rights campaigners, and Democrats in Congress on Monday continued to lambaste the Trump administration's quiet move to end abortion care for former U.S. service members and their relatives.
"Since taking office, the Trump administration has repeatedly attacked service members, veterans, and their families' access to basic reproductive care, including gender-affirming care," said Planned Parenthood Federation of America president and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson in a Monday statement.
Planned Parenthood and its leader have frequently criticized actions by President Donald Trump, including his signature on Republicans' recently passed budget reconciliation package that targets the group's clinics—which provide a range of healthcare services—by cutting them off from Medicaid funds if they continue to offer abortions.
"Those who fight for all our freedom must have the most basic freedom to control their own bodies and futures—and this rule robs them of it. Taking away access to healthcare shows us that the Trump administration will always put politics and retribution over people's lives," McGill Johnson said of the new proposal for veterans' care. "Planned Parenthood will never stop fighting to ensure everyone has access to the full spectrum of sexual and reproductive healthcare—no matter what."
The Trump Administration just moved to BAN abortion care for VETERANS, even in instances of rape and incest.This is just another attack on our veterans and reproductive health care.We owe it to our servicemembers to provide them the care they need.
[image or embed]
— Rep. Ted Lieu (@reptedlieu.bsky.social) August 4, 2025 at 1:06 PM
In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 reversal of Roe v. Wade, the Biden administration allowed the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide abortion counseling and care for service members and beneficiaries in cases of rape, incest, or if the pregnancy threatened the health of the patient. On Friday, the VA proposed a rule that would "reinstate the full exclusion on abortions and abortion counseling from the medical benefits package," and the Civilian Health and Medical Program.
The document says the VA would continue treating ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages, and would allow abortion care "when a physician certifies that the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term."
The proposal quickly drew rebuke from a range of critics, including U.S. lawmakers. Blasting the proposed rule as "disgusting and dangerous," Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Ranking Member Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said on social media Friday that the government "should not be able to impose a pregnancy on anyone—least of all survivors of rape, abuse, or those whose health is at risk."
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who had advocated for the Biden administration's policy, declared Saturday that "Republicans don't care if your health is in danger, if you're a veteran, or if you've been raped—they want abortion outlawed everywhere, for everyone."
As the 30-day public comment period for the proposed rule began Monday, U.S. House Veterans' Affairs Committee Ranking Member Mark Takano (D-Calif.) warned that "stripping away access to essential reproductive healthcare at VA, the largest integrated healthcare network in the United States, puts veterans' lives at risk and violates the promise we made to them. Veterans have earned the right to healthcare. Full stop. This ban on reproductive healthcare will harm veterans and is dangerous."
The proposal makes clear that VA Secretary Doug Collins "is substituting his judgment for that of the hundreds of thousands of women veterans who have earned the freedom to make personal medical decisions in consultation with their providers," Takano said in a statement. "It also gags medical providers and does not allow them to provide complete and honest care to veterans who get their care from VA. Rolling back this rule is a direct attack on veterans' rights. It will jeopardize the lives of pregnant veterans across our country, especially those residing in states with total abortion bans and other reproductive healthcare restrictions, which have already led to preventable deaths."
Reproductive rights advocates have similarly weighed in over the past few days and highlighted the anti-choice state laws enacted since the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision reversed Roe.
Katie O'Connor, senior director of federal abortion policy at the National Women's Law Center, said that "at a time when extremist lawmakers are passing cruel abortion bans and restrictions, this move only deepens the crisis those laws have created—stripping veterans of their reproductive freedom and creating even more confusion about where they can turn for care."
"Veterans already face unique challenges to their health and well-being, including experiencing PTSD, recovering from military sexual trauma, and facing an increased risk of suicide," she noted, referring to post-traumatic stress disorder. "Banning access to the full range of reproductive services, including abortion, further jeopardizes their health and safety. No one should have to travel hundreds of miles, endure financial hardship, or risk their health just to get the medical care they need. Our veterans deserve better."
Center for Reproductive Rights president and CEO Nancy Northup declared that "this administration is sending a clear message to veterans—that their health and dignity aren't worth defending. To devalue veterans in this way and take away life-changing healthcare would be unconscionable. This shows you just how extreme this administration's anti-abortion stance is—they would rather a veteran suffer severely than receive an abortion."
Dr. Raegan McDonald-Mosley, a practicing OB-GYN and CEO of Power to Decide, also warned that the new "needlessly cruel policy change," if it goes through as expected, will harm veterans and "once again betrays our nation's commitment to them."
"Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, 12 states have enacted total abortion bans, one additional state has no abortion clinics, and seven states have gestational restrictions often in effect so early that people don't even know they are pregnant," she explained. "All of this exacerbates an ongoing public health crisis. For some veterans, VA was the only place they were able to obtain abortion care in these states."
"Restrictions on abortion coverage—the effects of which fall hardest on people who already face unequal access to healthcare, including Black women, people of color, and people with low incomes—hinder a person's reproductive well-bring and deepen inequities," the doctor added. "Power to Decide condemns this policy and urges Congress to pass legislation to ensure all veterans have access to the abortion care they need when and where they need it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular