Tangle - The Trump savings accounts.

Episode Date: June 2, 2026

On Thursday, the Trump administration launched its app for Trump Accounts, which will seed tax-advantaged investment accounts for children born between 2025 and 2028 with $1,000 in an effort to support long-term financial stability for future U.S. adults. While the accounts won’t be funded until at least July 4, the program’s official launch date, parents of eligible children can now open accounts through the Internal Revenue Service. Ad-free podcasts are here!To listen to this podcast ad-free, and to enjoy our subscriber only premium content, go to ReadTangle.com to sign up!Less than two weeks.Our in-person gathering in Berkeley Springs, West Virginia, is rapidly approaching, and we’re building out a great program for the main event on Sunday, June 14. Come join Executive Editor Isaac Saul, Editor-at-Large Kmele Foster, The Daily co-creator Andy Mills and The Free Press’s Kat Rosenfield for a lively discussion on AI and national politics, with additional opportunities to hang out with the full Tangle team. A limited number of tickets are still available — get yours before they’re gone!You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠ and today's “Under the radar” story ⁠here⁠ and today’s “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠.You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here. Take the survey: How would you use a Trump Account? Let us know.Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.This podcast was written by: Isaac Saul and audio edited and mixed by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Lindsey Knuth, Bailey Saul, and Audrey Moorehead. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From executive producer Isaac Saul, this is Tangle. Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and welcome to the Tangle podcast, the place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take. I'm your host, Isaac Saul. It is Tuesday, and today I'm thinking about how much money I'd pay to have been a fly on the wall for the Trump-Netanyahu phone call this week. Not sure if you guys were clued into this.

Trump reportedly called Netanyahu fucking crazy, quote unquote, and said he'd be in jail if it weren't for him, telling Netanyahu'd be in jail if it weren't for him, while Netanyahu's team has claimed that report from Axios is inaccurate and that the disagreement was based on conflicting social media posts about the existence of a ceasefire. There's only one way to find out. I call on both sides to release the tapes.

We want to hear the phone call, everybody. Back here, stateside, we're jumping into the Trump accounts today. formerly known as money accounts for growth and advancement, which is definitely a worse name. We've also got a reader question about whether America's military is propping up the European social safety net and an under-the-radar story on a new ghost gun law. It's a great episode.

But before we jump in, I want to give one more promo. Actually, it's not just going to be one more. I'm going to be talking about this a lot the next week. We're coming to West Virginia. Berkeley Springs, West Virginia, June 13th and 14th. VIP dinner, June 13th, Saturday night, June 14th, matinee afternoon, live recording of our podcast at the historic star theater in Berkeley Springs. This town is an American gem.

You have to go see it for yourself. If you don't have tickets yet, you can find them in the episode description or on our website, readtangle.com forward slash live. It's going to be an awesome show. I'm really excited for this. It's going to be a super intimate setting, a really, really special place. June 13 to 14, if you're looking for a little weekend getaway, if you live anywhere in the northeast or the Midwest or the kind of mid-Atlantic South,

not all the way down to Florida, but, you know, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, it's an easy trip to get there. And I encourage you to come. Berkeley Springs, West Virginia, June 13th, and 14th, tickets are on sale now. And it's going to be a great opportunity to meet the team and have some fun. So I hope to see you there. All right, with that, I'm going to head it over to John, and I'll be back for my take. Thanks, Isaac, and welcome, everybody.

Here are your quick hits for today. First up, the Trump administration reportedly indicated that it will end its effort to create a $1.776 billion dollar anti-weaponization fund for individuals and entities who claim to have suffered from politically motivated prosecutions. The Justice Department also said it will abide by a federal judge's ruling that temporarily barred the fund from making payouts, though it does not take informal steps to end the effort. Number two, President Donald Trump held a phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

on Israel's military action in Lebanon and reportedly berated the prime minister, calling him fucking crazy and saying everybody hates Israel because of this. In a statement, Netanyahu said Israel will conduct further airstrikes in Beirut if Hezbollah attacks continue, and an Israeli senior official claimed the report is inaccurate. Number three, Defense Secretary Pete Higsef blocked promotions for nine Navy officers who were set to become one-star admirals after being selected by a board of senior Navy admirals, including three women and two black men. The Pentagon has not explained the decision, and the new one-star list includes two non-white officers and no female officers. Number four, a panel of a U.S. appeals court ruled two to one that the Trump administration cannot expel current U.S. service members who are transgender while a lawsuit challenging the policy plays out. However, the court found that the administration can block transgender people from enlisting in the military.

At number five, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeyer sued Open AI and its CEO Sam Altman, alleging that the AI company released products that it knew could harm users and contributed to acts of violence in addition to other harms. Florida is the first U.S. state to sue OpenAI. Parents looking to get a jump start on their children's financial futures can look to the White House and Trump accounts, investment savings accounts for children. Real trust funds for every American child, allowing family members, employers, corporations, generous donors to contribute money

that will be invested and grow over the course of a child's life. On Thursday, the Trump administration launched its app for Trump accounts, which will cede tax-advantaged investment accounts for children born between 2025 and 2028 with $1,000 in an effort to support long-term financial stability for future U.S. adults. While the accounts won't be funded until at least July 4th, the program's official launch date,

parents of eligible children can now open accounts through the Internal Revenue Service. For context, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act enacted last summer created money accounts for growth and advancement, now Trump accounts, as a type of traditional individual retirement account for tax-deferred investments in index funds. Only American children born between 2025 and 28 qualify for the one-time $1,000 contribution. But parents and guardians can open Trump accounts for any child with a valid social security number who is under the age of 18 before the end of the calendar year in which the account is established. Once beneficiaries turn 18, they will have full control of their accounts

and withdrawals are taxed until retirement age, with exceptions for education, first-time home purchases, birth or adoption costs, or medical expenses. Parents, guardians, and other adults can contribute up to $5,000 per account annually, including up to $2,500 from an employer. Separately, children who don't qualify for the $1,000 contribution but are under 10 and born before January 1, 2025 are eligible to receive $250 in their account if they live in a zip code where the median income is $150,000 or less. Additionally, some charitable organizations and state and local governments can also contribute funds that do not count toward the annual cap. Dell CEO Michael Dell and his wife pledged $6.25 billion to support this offering, and other corporations

have pledged financial support for their employees' accounts. President Trump has said the initiative will help millions of Americans harness the strength of our economy to lift up the next generation. According to the White House, approximately six million children have been enrolled in accounts, and the new mobile app will allow parents and guardians to manage their children's funds. Some Democrats have questioned the purpose of the initiative, pointing to comments from Treasury Secretary Scott Besant last July in which he said, in a way, Trump accounts are a backdoor for privatizing Social Security. Besant later said the administration views the accounts as a way to support Social Security, accusing Democrats of opposing the program because it brings capitalism

and markets to every American. Today, we'll share views from the left and the right on the upcoming launch of Trump account, and then Isaac's take. We'll be right back after this quick break. All right. First of all, let's start with what the left is saying. Many on the left say the program has promise, but also structural flaws. Some argue the administration's other policies undercut its claims about helping kids. Others argue that Trump accounts will mostly benefit the wealthy. In the Atlantic, Will Gotsiken described what's behind the new Trump child savings accounts. From a financial planning perspective, taking free money from the government is a no-brainer,

Gottigin wrote. But the way the account is set up could hinder its success. One challenge is that not every child eligible for a Trump account will get one, because parents have to opt into it on their tax forms. Research has shown that it's much harder to get people to opt into a policy than to opt out. Trump came into power in 2016 by selling Americans a faux populist economic platform. The broad coalition of voters that spurred both of his elections included portions of the working class and some of his fancy friends, Gotskin said.

Trump has always purported to support American families. Trump accounts theoretically represent the kind of pro-child policy that both parties could unite around. but the branding may be a liability. At a time when a majority of the country disapproves or actively reviles the president, his name alone could end up limiting the program's success. In counterpunch, Dean Baker suggested Trump accounts are a sick joke. Many of the Trump crew seem to be disillusioned about Trump accounts. They claim to believe that they will replace Social Security, Baker wrote.

Even if they wanted to put money in a tax-advantaged account, why would they choose a Trump account rather than an education savings account or an IRA. Money in existing tax-advantaged accounts can be withdrawn, albeit with the penalty. Money in a Trump account can only be accessed by the kid when they turn 18. Trump and congressional Republicans have been gleefully cutting food stamps, housing assistance, Medicaid, and the subsidies in the Obamacare exchanges. As a result, tens of millions of people will be denied benefits that they previously depended upon, Baker said. This means two to three years from now, there are likely to be tens or even hundreds of thousands

of kids with $1,000. in their Trump accounts who are living on the streets, going hungry, or unable to get necessary medical care because Trump has cut the programs their families depend upon. In the lever, Mary Sherman asked, who benefits from the program? In truth, like everything else Trump has emblazoned with his name, Trump accounts are far from an act of unqualified benevolence, Sherman wrote. Keeping money invested over decades helps weather the market's highs and lows, which will likely be so for Trump accounts that are eventually transferred to other types of retirement

accounts, but few struggling families can afford this luxury. Only those who are financially stable can afford to leave money untouched for decades. Although the Trump administration has pitched Trump accounts as a way to help close the wealth inequality gap, claiming they will lift up the next generation and jumpstart the American dream, the inherent inequality built into the program belies such aims, Sherman said. Parents or guardians can deposit up to $5,000 annually into Trump accounts, but that means children from wealthier families will see far larger gains, than those who cannot afford such expenditures. All right, that is it for what the left is saying, which brings us to what the right is saying.

Many on the right support Trump accounts, viewing them as a vehicle for equal opportunity wealth building. Some say the program will fuel appreciation for America's free market economy. Others argue the accounts are another unnecessary entitlement program. In the American thinker, Julio Rivera said, Trump looks on to the next generation. President Trump has always understood a truth that much of Washington either ignores or refuses to confront. Nations do not endure on rhetoric alone. They endure because they raise strong families, cultivate capable citizens, and think beyond the next election cycle, Rivera wrote.

The launch of Trump accounts is a striking example of this thinking. It is a foundation. It is a clear signal that the nation has a vested interest in the financial literacy, long-term security, and upward mobility of its youngest citizens. At a time when many young Americans feel economically boxed out before they even reach adulthood, Trump accounts are a declaration that the system should reward those willing to build, save, and contribute, Rivera said. This is not a European-style welfare promise. It is American capitalization in its purest form, empowering individuals early, encouraging ownership, and reinforcing the idea that prosperity is something cultivated over time rather than redistributed after the fact.

President Trump is placing American families back at the center of national policy, not as symbols, but as stakeholders. In the Hill, Jonathan Turley predicted Trump accounts will help reverse the tide of socialism. According to polls, a rising segment of the population is calling for socialism or even communism as young people embrace a radical chic in the country, Turley wrote. With an anticipated 25 million participants, the Trump Accounts Initiative is one of the most ambitious and potentially impactful in U.S. history. But its true impact may be far greater than the wealth that it could generate for families. It may just be the determinative factor in preserving this republic in this century.

Millions of young people will be able to experience the benefits of investments, savings, and most importantly, economic independence. It has the benefit of being a tangible lesson about capitalism, Turley said. As socialist experiments replicate the failures of past eras, these accounts will offer a stark contrast for a rising generation. For young Americans, there has been a continual barrage of anti-capitalist sentiments. However, there is still muscle memory in this country of the gifts that free markets brought to a free people. National Review's editors argued, most American families don't

need yet another entitlement program. As for the merits of the policy, Trump accounts are bound to disappoint the editors, wrote. If the federal government wanted to help American families more efficiently, it could give the money its spending on Trump accounts directly, such as through an expanded child tax credit. Parents could decide to use those funds to invest in their child's name for the future without restriction, or instead spend on more immediate expenses like child care or education. As for tax-devantage savings accounts, the government should consolidate the existing options, not add complexity by creating new ones, the editors said. After the Trump accounts program expires in 2029, the government should shift focus to enabling families to spend

and invest their own money as they see fit, not sending them taxpayer checks and micromanaging how they use the money. All right, let's head over to Isaac for his take. All right, that is it for the left and the writer saying, which brings us to my might take. So I rarely view a policy as an unambiguous win, but this one, it comes pretty close. Here are a few operating assumptions that I work from about government and money. The government is not very efficient at running programs, but it is very good at cutting checks. Government-built apps and websites are usually bad. We have a lot of untapped bipartisan agreement on policies that could significantly improve our country. Wealth disparity is one of the defining issues of our time and

causes significant fraying of the social order, and we are a rich, innovative country, and our government should act like it by taking big swings and experimenting more. The Trump accounts checks a lot of these boxes. The government is good at cutting checks, and this program effectively allows it to cut $1,000 checks to any eligible child who signs up and then let their money work for them in the U.S. economy, which remains the envy of the world. The operating cost is going to be pretty small, and since all the government has to do here is confirm applicants' eligibility and disperse the money, I'm less worried than normal about program inefficiency. As for the usually clunky government-built apps and websites, that's not the case here.

The app was built in partnership with Robin Hood, and the design reflects the company's recognizable interface, simple and easy to use. My son was born on January 20, 2025, just in time to qualify, so I just experimented and signed him up this morning. I have not completed the identity verification step, but it just looks like a simple tax form and uploading your ID should take about 10 to 15 minutes to complete. Getting him into the system alone took all of two minutes, you know, downloading the app, putting his name, birthday, and that sort of thing. The app itself just demonstrates with a little video how you can grow the account to

$112,000 over 18 years with regular contributions. And there's something accessible about the whole user experience and the pathway to savings that makes me want to commit to the program. I'm now on the Trump accounts list to get updates about the program launch and I'll be notified when the $1,000 is ready for transfer, at which point I can fill out the tax forms and finish the process.

On the bipartisan policy point, it's hard to imagine something that gets as close to broad appeal as this. The program is effectively a Republican president branding a democratic idea as his own and addressing issues raised by both parties. Conservatives are making boosting for tick a central political issue, while liberals have long decried the economic challenges of raising families.

This program isn't going to make having kids affordable by itself, but incentivizing a simple long-term investment option for children with a no-strings-attached $1,000 deposit is a good way to lessen the burden of building your children's long-term wealth. As for the two semi-related points about wealth disparity becoming a major issue and us being a rich, innovative country that should take big swings, this program checks both boxes. Not only does it provide an easy first step on a pathway for some families to genuinely improve their children's circumstances, it actually is a fresh government program. Obviously, other child savings accounts already exist, but this is the first federally

funded children's savings program implemented at a national scale with nearly six million sign-ups already. For context, the first Affordable Care Act enrollment period brought in about 11.7 million people, which was one of the largest and fastest adoptions of any government program ever. And this program doesn't officially launch for another month. The program also highlights one of the upsides of Trump's trademark flare, his ability to gin up interest among wealthy donors and draw in the private sector to support initiatives he's striving. Michael and Susan Dell threw in over $6 billion for kids who are too old to qualify for the $1,000, and they aren't alone. Other wealthy Americans have promised to step up in similar ways across the country.

These are all positive developments, but the biggest and most obvious question is, will it work? Will this actually increase the wealth of a generation of kids? The Atlantic's Will Gotsigan, under what the left is saying, rightfully identified some downsides of the program, like the fact you have to opt in rather than be automatically enrolled, meaning adoption may be a struggle. Enrolling nearly six million children is a lot,

but 73 million are eligible. While my experience with the program has been pretty much seamless, downloading an app and completing a few tax forms introduces some friction, particularly for families without phone or internet access. Also, while the government's $1,000 check is a unique incentive, parents still have to learn about these accounts and choose them over other investment options. These kinds of hurdles may seem small, but they'll loom larger for low-income families who are exempt from filing taxes and thus, less than.

likely to learn about the program or enroll. That's a genuine weakness of this government program, but it's also a weakness of many others, and obviously enrolling 73 million children automatically would incur a massive cost. Some of the Trumpian elements that make this unique are also somewhat risky. These accounts only allow investment in U.S. stocks, meaning that if the U.S. economy tanks, parents who go all in on this option won't have an insurance policy. The upside, though, is that U.S. companies are going to benefit directly from wide-scale adoption of the program, which seems like a good second-order benefit to me. Ultimately, if these are the biggest criticisms of the program, I think it's a net win. Some people have raised cost concerns, but the $1,000 pilot for eligible

children is expected to run about $3.6 billion for the first year. For context, the Iran war has cost us $29 billion so far without even accounting for the spike in energy costs. Also, our very wealthy nation is taking a very big swing at a very big problem and doing it with the kind of public-private partnership that often yields results. It's simple with limited administrative overhead and it's bipartisan with broad appeal. The program occupied all of a single clause in my piece on the good President Trump has done in his second term so far, but it's probably one of the most unambiguously positive policy programs of his second administration. All right, that is it for my take. I'm going to handed over to managing editor Ari Weitzman, who has a staff dissent today.

My wife and I are expecting a trial suit, but what I don't expect is for a Trump account to comprise a large part of our savings portfolio. It is one distinguishing characteristic, the free $1,000 deposit, which is certainly captivating. Otherwise, IRAs already have tax-free interest and the same qualifying withdrawals. While 529 plans also have tax-free interest, but they also allow tax-free education withdrawals too. So why would I leverage my child's future savings with an account that has more restricted offerings compared to other options? Don't get me wrong. I'll take the thousand dollars, and I'll probably include this in my future saving strategy in some way. But I would have preferred if Trump had gone the private sector route, like providing government funds to jumpstart some new class

of custodial savings account with fewer withdrawal restrictions than what's already available in the market. that way companies like Vanguard and Fidelity can compete with each other to offer them. Instead, he's offering a more limited government program that he can put his name on. That's it for my dissent, so I'm going to send it back to John for the rest of the pod. We'll be right back after this quick break. All right, thank you, Ari. That brings us to your question's answer. This one's from Lauren in London, England.

Lauren said, how much truth is there to the argument that European social safety nets are propped up by American military spending. So leaders across the political spectrum have criticized countries for being free riders on U.S. aid, including former President Obama and President Trump. That kind of consensus usually suggests the underlying complaint is well-founded. The U.S. is, in fact, providing a huge chunk of military funding to mutual defense agreements that benefit European countries. When it comes to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or NATO defense spending, that is, money going toward defense, specifically for NATO allies, which are largely in Europe, the U.S. leads the way. We spent $980 billion in 2025, accounting for 62% of NATO's defense spending.

The next two highest spenders were Germany and the United Kingdom at roughly $94 and $91 billion, respectively. Even as a percent of GDP, the United States 3.2 percent spent on defense outpaces the non-U.S. NATO average of 2.3 percent, although defense spending by European countries is increasing. On the other side of the equation, Europe is also spending more on social services. According to a European Union report, EU countries spent 27.3% of their collective GDP on social protection benefits in 2024 compared to the U.S. spending 19.8% of its GDP on social services. Of course, not every European nation is the same. Germany and France spent over 30% of GDP on social services, while the Baltic states spent under 19% and, and, and, and, and, and, and,

and Ireland spends just 11.4%. But average social spending in Europe is proportionally higher than it is in the U.S. So yes, the United States spends much more on defense than European nations, and European nations, on average, spend much more on social services than the United States. Although we can't link those two trends directly, U.S. military spending does implicitly offer European nations some budgetary flexibility. All right, that is it for your questions answered. I'm going to send back to John for the rest of the pod,

and I'll see you guys tomorrow. Have a good one. Peace. Thanks, Isaac. Here's your Under the Radar Story for today, folks. On May 27th, New York Governor Kathy Hookill signed the state's budget for fiscal year 27, which included landmark new provisions designed to prohibit the creation of ghost guns or untraceable guns built using 3D printers. Under the law, all 3D printers sold in New York must include technology that prevents users from printing guns, violating the law carries a $5,000 fine per product sold. The New York Police Department has recovered an increasing number of 3D printed ghost guns in recent years,

and government officials said the law represents a new step forward in public safety. However, critics of the law say it endangers First Amendment rights. USA Today has this story, and there's a link in today's episode description. And last but not least, our Have a Nice Day story. Six years ago, graduates of the University of Virginia started a new tradition. They would carry fun, themed balloons to find out of the first. final exercises on the lawn. Then, instead of throwing the balloons away, graduates hand them off to waiting volunteers to carry to children at UVA Children's Hospital. The 26th graduation

ceremony was no different. It featured a record-breaking number of both balloons and volunteers to bring them to the hospital. UVA staff member Matt Weber said, to me, it's the best of UVA. It's people who care about the traditions, but care about what the tradition means and what the traditions can do beyond just sort of the aesthetics of a balloon, but about the societal good that so many UVA students will be there. CBS19 has this story, and there's a link in today's episode description. All right, everybody, that is it for today's episode. As always, if you'd like to support our work, please go to readtangle.com, where you can sign up for a newsletter membership, podcast membership, or a bundled membership that gets you a discount on both. We'll be right back

here tomorrow. For Isaac and the rest of the crew, this is John Law signing off. Have a great day, all. Peace. Our executive editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul, and our executive producer is John Wall. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our editorial staff is led by managing editor Ari Weitzman with senior editor Will Kayback and associate editors Audrey Moorhead, Lindsay Canuth, and Bailey Saul. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website at retangle.com.