By Ashley Burnside and Jesse Fairbanks
Michael and Susan Dell recently announced a $6.25 billion donation to the new “Trump Accounts” for children up to age 10 living in zip codes with median incomes of under $150,000. Media outlets have heralded the Dell family’s generosity, but this donation—and Trump Accounts generally—won’t end wealth inequality for families with low incomes.
Trump Accounts are tax-advantaged savings accounts seeded with $1,000 from the federal government for babies born between 2025 and 2028. Families are eligible regardless of their income, but children must have a Social Security number. Families or employers can invest up to $5,000 per year, and government entities and nonprofits can make additional contributions. At eighteen, the child can make withdrawals for expenses like college tuition or a down payment on a house. Unlike 529 savings accounts, money from Trump Accounts is taxable, as are contributions.
This policy sounds promising because it symbolizes an investment in America’s children. However, Trump Accounts effectively make the rich richer and widen wealth gaps.
Apart from the initial $1,000, the federal government makes no additional contributions to the accounts. Families with low-wage jobs will be less likely to work for an employer that offers up to $2,500 in annual contributions because these employers generally offer fewer benefits. These families may also struggle to invest in the accounts personally, while higher-income families—or their relatives such as grandparents with generational wealth—can take advantage of this option.
When children turn 18, families who contributed the annual maximum could have an account of more than $190,000, while children who only received the initial $1,000 could have an account as low as $4,000. Young adults with the means to leave the account untouched because of other savings can allow their Trump Account to mature as a traditional individual retirement account, furthering the wealth divide. These children could turn $190,000 in their Trump Account into an estimated $4.8 million by the time they’re 60.
The Dells’ contribution is income-targeted geographically, in that only children living in counties with a median income below $150,000 will receive the $250. Their donation will miss families with low incomes who live in wealthy areas. Furthermore, without additional investment, the small contribution of $250 could grow to just $450-$900 depending on the child’s age. That’s not generational wealth. Future donors could better target their donations by setting a lower qualifying median income threshold to provide a larger one-time contribution.
Trump Accounts are not designed to help families with low incomes build wealth. The accounts don’t allow philanthropic and government donors to income-target by picking recipients based on family income. Thus, donors like the Dell family who are dedicated to narrowing wealth gaps must use imperfect geographic measures to target their contributions. The Dell’s donation could have better served children without wealth if federal guidance allowed them to provide a greater one-time investment to families with extremely low incomes. Federal guidance could also allow contributions to certain populations that face economic barriers, such as foster youth.
Connecticut’s state baby bond program is a promising example of income-targeting. Babies there born on or after July 1, 2023, and eligible for Medicaid are automatically enrolled in a state-managed trust fund that’s seeded up to $3,200. Because a child must receive Medicaid to be eligible, the program is income-targeted. State officials estimate over 15,000 children are enrolled annually and set up to receive $11,000 to $24,000 as young adults.
Trump Accounts aren’t baby bonds because their goals differ. Baby bonds aspire to reduce wealth gaps, especially between white and Black people living in the U.S., by seeding more money into the accounts of children from families experiencing poverty. Through Trump Accounts, conservative policymakers aim to invest in “a new generation of capitalists” without regard for how the current design might worsen wealth gaps.
It’s promising to see a national, bipartisan conversation about promoting wealth-building for children, but Trump Accounts fail too many children. By design, the Trump Administration has limited the ability of private and public donors to target their investments by family income. Donors committed to closing wealth gaps should instead consider investing in state and local initiatives with positive outcomes for children that allow for precise income-targeting, such as New Mexico’s baby bonds program or local guaranteed income pilots. To create a country where all children have generational wealth, lawmakers and donors need to invest in cash programs that effectively target families based on income and wealth.
In a podcast produced and hosted by First Focus on Children, Wendy Cervantes joins in an episode called, “Wendy Cervantes Demands Better Protections for Immigrant Kids.” She discusse how immigration enforcement policies are affecting children in immigrant families, with a focus on the fear, instability, and the lasting impact these policies can have on children’s development and well-being. She also talked about the broader effects on schools, communities, and family life, and why stronger protections are needed to keep children safe and supported. Watch or listen as she joined First Focus on Children’s podcast to dive deep on these issues.
By Christian Collins, Teon Hayes, Kaelin Rapport
2026 marks the 250th anniversary of the United States, and this February brings the 10oth anniversary of Black History Month. The Association for the Study of African American Life and History, which founded Black History Month, calls us to celebrate Black history across the African Diaspora and how that history is tied to Black people’s current material conditions. Those conditions have become more precarious as the Trump Administration enacts its agenda to”Make American Great Again.”
Considering these two anniversaries, we should ask ourselves what great means, and great for whom? In the first year of Trump’s second term, his administration has enacted explicitly discriminatory policies reversing the progress made by civil rights leaders and activists in the struggle for equity. These actions disproportionately harm Black communities and destroy measures implemented to right historical wrongs.
Acknowledging the past through reparations is a necessary step toward building a future where the white supremacy undergirding the MAGA movement is stamped out. While there has been abundant research on racial inequality, more direct examination on how best to address harm and evaluate the impact of existing reparative policies and programs is needed. We can learn from those that have gotten off the ground so that all communities, especially ones still dealing with the legacies of slavery and Jim Crow, can thrive.
By Jesse Fairbanks
Everyone deserves a safe, affordable home. Our federal government protects people from housing instability through its rental assistance programs that help more than 10 million people, including 3.2 million children, keep a roof over their heads.
The Trump Administration is drafting a rule that, reportedly, would allow more providers of rental assistance and other HUD-assisted housing to add work requirements and/or time limits to their programs. Under the draft rule, housing providers could:
Implementing strict time limits or work requirements in rental assistance programs will put as many as 3 million people at risk of losing their homes without increasing employment opportunities or economic mobility. People who are able to work but lack reliable shelter struggle to find and maintain a job, care for loved ones, and develop their skills. Federal, state, and local policymakers must reject harmful policies like work requirements and time limits, which would ultimately deprive low income and working families of critically necessary housing stability.
You can learn more about what this proposal could mean for HUD-assisted housing programs and the communities who need them to thrive in this fact sheet written with national partners like the National Housing Law Project, Justice in Aging, the National Low Income Housing Coalition, and Southern Poverty Law Center.
This statement can be attributed to Wendy Chun-Hoon, executive director of the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP)
January 26, 2026, Washington, D.C. – Over the weekend, immigration enforcement agents killed another U.S. citizen, 37-year-old Alex Pretti. This is just weeks after the murder of Renee Good, and dozens of other violent actions that have harmed immigrants and U.S. citizens alike. The Senate will consider a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) budget this week that increases funding for immigration enforcement and will lead to more children and families being needlessly victimized. Members of Congress must reject any legislation that further empowers the administration to continue its attacks against families across the country.
Trump Administration officials have made clear since day one of their second term that they intended to go after children, families, and workers. Children are bearing the brunt of this hateful agenda. In just the first few weeks of this year, a five-year-old was used as bait after immigration enforcement agents followed him and his father home from school and arrested his father near their home; several children, including a six-month-old, were hospitalized after their car was tear-gassed on their way home; a 17-year-old was violently assaulted at work, abducted, and then thrown out in a parking lot miles away; and a seven-year-old and her parents were abducted in front of a hospital where they went to seek emergency care for her.
CLASP, along with other children’s advocates from the Children Thrive Action Network, have called on Congress to reject any increased funding for immigration enforcement that kidnaps entire families and traumatizes children. The devastating harms already inflicted on children and families across the country aren’t reversible, but additional harms are absolutely preventable. It is up to Congress to stand with communities and stop this administration’s crusade of violence.
Let us be clear. There is no acceptable amount of funding in this legislation for body cameras or oversight language that justifies increased or level funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Patrol (CBP). The historic funding increases for these agencies included in H.R.1 have allowed the administration to rapidly onboard agents and turbocharge deportation efforts. The video recordings of these agents violently attacking and killing people and breaking the law make it abundantly clear that body cameras are doing little to deter agents from using violence, nor are they leading to meaningful consequences or changes to unlawful protocols. We have enacted laws, policies, and guidance that are supposed to prevent these abuses; yet the Trump Administration is actively disregarding them. Therefore, the Senate must not pass a budget that increases funding for ICE and CBP. Doing so would empower this administration to continue to terrorize our communities.
As an organization that’s been working for more than 50 years to advance policies that allow all children and families to thrive, we call on Congress and state and local officials to hold this administration accountable and protect our communities from further harm.
By Shira Small, Rachel Wilensky, and Stephanie Schmit
Updated January 23, 2026
Since taking office on January 20, 2025, the Trump Administration has repeatedly undermined families’ access to child care and early education—disproportionately harming families with low incomes and families of color—by forcing Head Start closures; sowing fear and uncertainty among children and families, particularly immigrants; and weakening the federal agencies that support early childhood programs. CLASP’s new fact sheet documents these actions, outlines efforts to defend critical programs, and makes clear the urgent need to protect providers, children, and families from further harm.
CLASP’s new timeline, “The First Year of Trump’s Second Term: Harms to Children, Families, and Workers,” provides a clear illustration of just some of the ways that President Trump and his administration have targeted and harmed families, children, immigrants, communities of color, women, and people with low incomes.
This timeline highlights a number of specific actions and executive orders taken in the areas of immigration, child care, early education, higher education, workers’ rights, and public benefits during the first year of Trump’s second term. In its totality, this document shows that children, families, students, and workers are worse off after a year of the Trump Administration’s consistent attacks on people’s rights and access to support. This timeline is not intended to be a comprehensive list. While this document focuses on the administration’s actions, it’s important to note that those actions have emboldened hostility by individuals, states, and localities to families, immigrants, Black and brown communities, LGBTQ+ individuals, and other communities. It also offers important reminders of actions Trump attempted to take that, as of now, have not come to pass–including his effort to revoke birthright citizenship.
Finally, the timeline presents an overview of some responsive actions taken by communities, policymakers, and courts to withstand and counter the administration’s constant attacks on children, families, and workers; and suggests ways for individuals and communities to fight back against these attacks. In order to define our path forward, we need to understand what we’re fighting against. It is our intention that this timeline will demonstrate what the Trump Administration has done so far as we prepare for continued and new threats.
The Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) submitted a comment opposing the Department of Homeland Security’s proposal to rescind the 2022 public charge regulations without replacement. The proposed rule would intensify fear and confusion by failing to replace the 2022 regulations with clear standards or guidance. Instead, DHS signals that it may reinterpret public charge in the future. Without clear guidelines on what benefits may be considered, the proposal would trigger a renewed chilling effect, discouraging immigrant families from accessing essential health, nutrition, and housing supports. This would increase poverty, hunger, poor health, and housing instability, particularly for children, including U.S. citizen children. The proposal would also harm states, localities, and child-serving providers by undermining participation in programs designed to support economic stability and security. CLASP urges the Department of Homeland Security to withdraw the proposed regulation in its entirety and maintain the 2022 public charge regulations currently in effect.
One hundred, ninety organizations concerned with the well-being of children submitted a public comment to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) opposing a proposed rule that would provide the agency discretion to deny green cards based on factors such as an applicant’s health or use of any federal health or social services program.
By Monica Potts
[EXCERPT]
But the two biggest factors coming into play that are hitting families especially hard heading into the new year are the costs of childcare and health care, said Ashley Burnside, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Law and Social Policy, or CLASP. “We can’t talk about affordability in this moment without naming the huge health care costs that families are now facing because of the expiration of the premium tax credits,” she said.
…
Lorena Roque, associate director for labor policy at CLASP, said she sees data showing that a lot of families are taking on two or more jobs just to make ends meet. But even that might no longer provide a full picture of who is struggling because the administration has been hostile to the kinds of data-gathering efforts that would give us a fuller picture of the economy, like the rates of Black and Latino unemployment.
Read the full article in The New Republic.