The One Big Beautiful Bill and the Trump Accounts: What I Learned From My Own Research

by Larry Ballesteros

I’m not a financial expert, and I’m not a politician. I’m a Native American man who works hard, reads as much as I can, and tries to find the truth for myself. My name is Salish Nako, and this is my own plain-spoken explanation of the new Trump Accounts and what I found after doing a lot of digging.

I read articles, I looked at investment charts, I compared different return rates, and I tried to imagine what this money could look like when a kid turns 18. I’m writing this so people like me — regular people, not economists — can understand it without being talked down to.

What the Trump Accounts Are

The One Big Beautiful Bill created something called a “Trump Account.” If a baby is born between January 1, 2025 and December 31, 2028, the government puts $1,000 in a tax-advantaged investment account in that child’s name.

This money can’t be used right now — it has to sit there and grow until they turn 18. That’s the whole point: to give kids a financial head start so they’re not starting adult life with nothing.

There’s also a separate private donation from Michael and Susan Dell — about $6.25 billion — that gives an extra $250 for some kids under 10. That part is based on the ZIP code’s median income, not the parents’ personal income.

The portal to sign up hasn’t opened yet, but based on everything I’ve read from multiple news sources, it’s expected to open in early 2025.

Why Some ZIP Codes Don’t Qualify for the Dell Bonus

I learned this part is NOT the government.

It’s private donors, and they can target their money however they want.

They chose ZIP codes under about $150,000 median household income because that’s where kids statistically have less access to investment wealth. It doesn’t mean families in higher-income ZIP codes are rich — it just means donors had to pick a cutoff that reaches the largest number of middle- and lower-income neighborhoods.

And since it's private money, yes — donors do get tax benefits for charitable giving, just like anyone else who donates to a recognized nonprofit. I didn’t find anything sneaky or hidden about that. It’s standard tax law.

There’s talk that more donors might step in later, but nothing is guaranteed. Some philanthropists wait to see how a program launches before they add their money.

The Investment Side — What I Found Out With My Own Research

I looked at multiple compound-interest calculators and several investment guides. I compared 6%, 7%, and 8% annual returns — which are pretty normal long-term stock-market averages.

Here’s what the basic $1,000 could grow into with no extra money added:

At 6%: about $2,854

At 7%: about $3,380

At 8%: about $4,006

If the child also gets the $250 donor supplement, that grows too:

$1,250 at 7%: about $4,225

Not life-changing, but definitely a stronger start than zero.

What If Parents Add Money?

I looked up the federal rules, and parents can contribute up to the annual limit allowed for these tax-advantaged accounts (similar to retirement accounts). Those limits change year to year, but for the sake of examples, here is what I found using safe estimates:

1. If a parent adds just $10 a month:

After 18 years at 7% growth → about $6,400–$7,200

2. If a parent adds $50 a month:

18 years at 7% → about $18,500–$20,000

3. If a parent adds the max every year (roughly $2,000 a year):

18 years at 7% → around $70,000–$80,000, depending on fees and exact contribution limits.

4. Somewhere in the middle — like $500 a year:

18 years at 7% → about $20,000–$25,000

This is the part that surprised me the most:

Even small amounts add up over 18 years.

That’s the whole power of compound interest.

Pros (Based on What I Found)

Gives kids a real financial start

Encourages saving, not spending

Teaches parents and kids about investing

Private donors help without requiring more taxes

The extra donor money helps neighborhoods that statistically lag behind

The program is simple to understand

Kids get capital instead of a one-time cash benefit

Cons (Also Based on My Own Research)

It’s funded by taxpayers, so some people see it as redistribution

ZIP-code rules don’t look at individual income

Not every kid under 10 gets the donor money

Investment value can go up and down

Some say government programs like this might expand later

Families in “wealthy ZIP codes” are excluded even when they’re personally struggling

Why I Support It

I support this program because I’ve seen what happens when kids — especially Native kids — start life with nothing and then get hit with adult responsibilities with zero financial cushion.

This program doesn’t hand out spending money.

It creates capital, and that matters.

If a kid turns 18 and has even $4,000–$20,000 waiting for them, that can mean:

college books

trade school

a car for work

a security deposit

or even the beginning of an investment habit

That’s a head start my generation never had.

Why Some People Don’t Support It

From what I read:

Fiscal conservatives say government shouldn’t pay for private accounts

Some progressives say it’s too small

Others don’t like the ZIP-code cutoffs

Some people distrust anything involving the stock market

Others think the program favors certain communities

Everyone has their own angle. But I’m not writing from politics. I’m writing as a man who did the math and looked at the long view.

Final Thoughts

I might not have a fancy degree, but I know how to look something up, compare the numbers, and think things through. And everything I found tells me this:

Giving kids capital is better than giving them nothing.

A small seed can grow into something real over 18 years.

My name is Salish Nako, and these are my honest findings.