Skip to navigationSkip to main contentSkip to right columnADVERTISEMENTRishabh MishraFri, July 17, 2026 at 9:30 PM GMT+2 6 min readBenzinga and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue on some items through the links below.The much-touted millionaire projections for the newly launched Trump Accounts are drawing sharp criticism from top economists, with Justin Wolfers explicitly labeling the White House's figures as "ridiculous, dishonest and deeply misleading."While the administration claims the accounts offer a financial head start for children, critics argue that the underlying math relies on flawed assumptions and that the policy primarily functions as a permanent tax shelter for the wealthy.Flawed Assumptions and 'GIGO' MathThese accounts were launched earlier this month by President Donald Trump, created under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Eligible children born between Jan. 1, 2025, and Dec. 31, 2028, can receive a one-time $1,000 government contribution, which families and employers can then supplement.Don't Miss:The Average Family's Finances Are More Complicated Than Ever. These Tools Aim To Make Them Easier To Manage.Think Your 'Safe' Stocks Protect You? You're Ignoring the Real Growth Triggers — Here's What to Add NowHowever, Wolfers warned on Thursday that the administration's glossy wealth projections rely on highly unrealistic factors. In a July 16 post on X, Wolfers noted that while the "math behind the White House's Trump Account projections checks out," the assumptions do not.He stated the headline figures rely on decades of private contributions, incredibly optimistic stock returns, and a failure to adjust for inflation.Wolfers described the modeling as "GIGO — garbage in, garbage out." Pam Krueger, founder of Wealthramp, echoed these concerns, warning that the government app's assumed annual returns of over 10% are optimistic compared to standard market projections.The math behind the White House's Trump Account projections checks out. The assumptions don't.The headline numbers rely on decades of contributions, optimistic stock returns, and future dollars that won't buy nearly as much.More in this week's Diving In:… pic.twitter.com/4J7v7pHpGU— Justin Wolfers (@JustinWolfers) July 16, 2026Trending: Caught With Nothing Saved for Retirement? These 5 Game‑Changing Tips Could Still Save YouA Tax Shelter in Disguise?Beyond the math, Wolfers criticized the core structure of the policy, arguing it consists of a "tiny, temporary giveaway" for babies wrapped around a "brand-new, permanent tax break."While families can contribute up to $5,000 annually, employers can also deposit up to $2,500 in tax-free contributions. Because these employer contributions operate as a cut in taxable income, the support disproportionately favors higher tax brackets.Terms and Privacy PolicyEU DSA contactPrivacy & Cookie SettingsMore Info