Trump announces ‘historic’ enrollment of 70 million children into Trump Accounts
US President Donald Trump hands a challenge coin and a pen to a child during an announcement on Trump Accounts in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, Oct. 7, 2026. (Annabelle Gordon/The Washington Post/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
President Donald Trump on Wednesday hailed what he called the “historic” enrollment of 70 million American children into his Trump Accounts, calling them “a step to ensure every American child has a fair shot at the American Dream.”
The administration announced that beginning on Oct. 1, the Treasury Department automatically enrolled 60 million children under age 18 in the president’s signature investment accounts in addition to the 10 million whose parents opted into the accounts following their official release on July 4.
“With automatic enrollment now complete, every American child under the age of 18 has a Trump Account in their name, making it easier than ever for families to participate,” White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said in a statement.
According to the administration, $2.2 billion has been deposited into the accounts since their release on July 4. The Treasury Department pledged to pour a one-time $1,000 seed contribution for each child born between Jan. 1, 2025 and Dec. 31, 2028. Children born outside of that range will not receive the seed contribution from the Treasury — but their family members and acquaintances are able to deposit money into the accounts. Several corporations — including Uber and Nvidia — and philanthropists — such as Dell Technologies CEO Michael Dell and his wife, Susan, who seeded the program with a $6.25 billion contribution, also donated to the accounts.
Trump, encircled by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett, and the Dells, predicted, “So if all goes well, which I think it will, they’ll end up being quite rich by the time they’re 18 and then 21.”
Trump said in January when he announced the initiative that a number of major U.S. companies pledged to match the federal government’s initial contribution for eligible employees’ children, including Charles Schwab, Robinhood, SoFi, Uber, Charter Communication and BNY, and that several others had agreed to make contributions.
In a notice published in the Federal Register, the Treasury Department said that auto-enrollment was geared to maximize children’s participation in the accounts, estimating that an additional 2 million children would benefit from the accounts every year as a result.
“An eligible individual should not lose the opportunity to receive contributions or investment growth merely because no adult completed an election,” the Treasury wrote in the notice.
Starting Oct. 1, parents no longer have to opt-in to the accounts, but can claim their children’s accounts on the Trump Accounts app.
According to the administration, the accounts are designed to boost future financial security for the most recent generation of Americans, with each child gaining access to the account in their name once they reach the age of 18. They can then allocate the funds in the account solely for purposes designated by the Treasury Department — including paying for university tuition or purchasing a house.
Some Democrats have praise the program. Maryland Gov. Wes Moore called it a “smart policy,” and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who called it “one of the best things [Trump] has done.”
Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Democratic Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts introduced a similar proposal in 2023, which would have provided each American child with $1,000 at birth in an account that they could access at age 18, but it didn’t make it out of committee. Booker also supported Trump’s proposal.
A light rain falls outside of the U.S. Supreme Court ahead of the release of new opinions on June 23, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Next week, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on President Donald Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship by executive order, a move which would upend more than a century of legal precedent and a national tradition that have said babies born on American soil are automatically American citizens.
The ruling, one of the most highly anticipated of the year, is a major test of Trump’s unprecedented assertion of presidential power in his second term with major stakes for millions of children and their families.
What is birthright citizenship?
Birthright citizenship is the idea that a child automatically becomes a citizen of the country in which they are born, regardless of the immigration status of their parents.
It reflects the principle of jus soli, or right of the soil, extending citizenship purely on the basis of geographic location.
By contrast, many countries extend citizenship under the principle of jus sanguinis, or right of blood, which is determined by the nationality of a child’s parents regardless of the location of birth.
How does birthright citizenship work in the U.S.?
With few exceptions, all babies born on U.S. soil become U.S. citizens.
For the approximately 3.6 million children born in American hospitals every year, the birth certificate alone has been the key to obtaining Social Security numbers, passports and early life benefits.
Into adulthood, the birth certificate has been universally recognized as proof of citizenship for such things as voter registration, employment, home loans and military service.
What does the Constitution say about birthright citizenship?
The 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to address the legal status of former slaves and their descendants, says plainly that all “persons born or naturalized in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens.
Congress later codified the same language in federal citizenship law enacted in 1940.
Courts and the government have repeatedly interpreted the 14th Amendment to unambiguously confer citizenship on all children born in the U.S., including babies of unauthorized noncitizens and temporary residents, such as asylum seekers, international students, tourists and seasonal workers.
Do other countries allow birthright citizenship?
Yes. Thirty-two other countries have citizenship laws nearly identical to the U.S., according to data compiled by the Pew Research Center. Roughly 50 more have limited versions of birthright citizenship.
The most inclusive citizenship policies are in countries in the Western Hemisphere. Brazil, Canada, Argentina and Mexico, for example, closely mirror American law.
Pakistan, Chad and Mozambique are other notable comparators to the U.S.
European countries have historically been more restrictive when it comes to citizenship. France, Greece and Spain extend citizenship at birth only to children whose parents were also born in those countries.
Australia, Germany and the United Kingdom grant automatic citizenship to any child born to a legal resident.
Why does President Trump want to end birthright citizenship?
On the first day of his second term, President Trump signed an executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship by redefining the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
He claims that children born to noncitizen parents who are either unlawfully in the country or who possess temporary legal status, such as tourists or foreign students, are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. and therefore ineligible.
The order would restrict citizenship to babies of current American citizens or other lawful permanent residents that have established “domicile” in the U.S.
The president argues the current citizenship policy is a “scam” that has allowed wealthy adversaries to take advantage of American benefits and “ripped off” taxpayers by providing financial assistance to children of undocumented people.
What is the argument in favor of birthright citizenship?
Birthright citizenship has been part of American tradition repeatedly affirmed by courts and legislators for more than a century.
The Supreme Court previously rejected constitutional arguments similar to the ones Trump is making.
“The [14th] Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States,” wrote Justice Horace Gray in 1898 in the landmark Wong Kim Ark v. U.S. decision, addressing the status of children born to noncitizens.
Immigrant advocates and civil liberties groups have warned that ending birthright citizenship would harm hundreds of thousands of children born every year to noncitizen parents and create a bureaucratic nightmare for older Americans who would no longer be able to prove citizenship simply with a birth certificate.
An estimated 255,000 children born every year to noncitizen parents would have lost legal status under the order, according to the Migration Policy Institute. Some may have faced difficulty establishing citizenship in any country, effectively being born as “stateless.”
What happens if the Supreme Court allows Trump to end birthright citizenship?
The Trump administration says federal agencies have prepared guidelines for implementing a new process of conferring citizenship to children born after the order takes effect.
Federal agencies — by electronic databases or otherwise — would evaluate the legal status of a child’s parents first before making a determination of eligibility for citizenship and, in turn, for a Social Security number, passport and other benefits.
A U.S. birth certificate alone would no longer be sufficient proof of citizenship for any child going forward, including those born to American parents.
Immigrant advocates have warned of a “bureaucratic nightmare” for all parents of newborns, with vulnerable low-income children being particularly at risk of not getting necessary health care or nutrition assistance.
Some children who would not qualify for U.S. citizenship may be rendered “stateless” since several countries, particularly in southeast Asia, do not confer citizenship automatically to children born to their nationals abroad. That lack of legal status might make some newborns immediately eligible for deportation.
Can birthright citizenship be stripped if the court upholds Trump’s order?
The Trump administration says the executive order is not retroactive and would only apply to babies born after it takes effect.
However, some legal experts fear that any legal reasoning upholding Trump’s reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment could potentially be used by a future administration to pursue efforts to strip citizenship from some people if it wanted to.
“The government could move to unnaturalize people who were born here of illegal residents,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said during oral arguments in April.
When will the Supreme Court issue a ruling?
The justices are expected to rule in the case — Trump v. Barbara — before adjourning for their summer recess in early July.
U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth awaits the arrival of U.S. President Donald Trump for the NATO Summit on July 07, 2026, in Ankara, Turkey. Leaders from NATO’s 32 countries, plus NATO allies like Ukraine, gathered in the Turkish capital to discuss a range of issues involving spending targets, defense industrial production, and support for Ukraine, among other topics. (Photo by Burak Kara/Getty Images)
(SOUTH CAROLINA) — The suspensions of eight Apache pilots who flew low over the South Carolina coast on July Fourth were lifted Friday, according to the South Carolina National Guard, just hours after Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth publicly called for the reversal.
The Apache attack helicopters were flying in South Carolina’s annual “Salute from the Shore” event — which flies from Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, to Beaufort, North Carolina, along the coast on the Fourth of July — when video footage posted online appeared to show the pilots flying low over a crowded coastline. The pilots are members of the South Carolina National Guard’s Alpha 1-151 Attack Battalion.
The eight pilots involved were temporarily suspended shortly after the flight, Maj. Lisa Allen, a spokesperson for the South Carolina National Guard, confirmed on Thursday to ABC affiliate WPDE in Florence, South Carolina. What prompted the suspension is unclear.
The Guard clarified in a Thursday press release that the action was a “routine administrative measure whenever a flight profile is under review” and that the soldiers were still taking part in “regular daily duties in a non-flying capacity” — emphasizing in a post on X that it was “not a disciplinary action.” Allen confirmed on Friday that the review was now complete.
Low-altitude flying carries inherent risks, including the potential for debris to scatter on the ground and less time for pilots to respond to emergencies.
As the video of their flyover circulated on social media, reports of the suspension drew national scrutiny and prompted backlash from state and federal lawmakers.
Republican Rep. Russell Fry of South Carolina called for the National Guard to “drop this review and restore these pilots immediately” in a Thursday morning post on X, saying the pilots “should be celebrated, not sanctioned.” Fry also penned a letter to the South Carolina National Guard, where he decried the suspension as a “misguided decision and a misuse of resources.”
South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, a Republican, also criticized the suspension.
“Surely, they know how to safely navigate the coast of South Carolina — and her scores of cheering residents and tourists on our 250th anniversary,” McMaster wrote on X.
Hegseth weighed in on Thursday evening, promising to “fix” the suspension in response to a video of the flyover posted on X.
“We’ll fix this. Carry on, Patriots,” Hegseth wrote.
Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell echoed Hegseth in his Friday announcement lifting the suspension, writing on X that “Effective immediately, the suspension of all involved South Carolina pilots has been lifted. Carry on Patriots.”
Allen also announced in a press release that the suspension was lifted, adding that “The South Carolina National Guard appreciates the outpouring of concern and support from our community and state leaders.”
It is not the first time that Hegseth has intervened on behalf of suspended Apache pilots. In late March, two Apache helicopters were flagged by the Army for flying low and hovering near Kid Rock’s Nashville house. Their suspension was rolled back just hours after it was announced, and Hegseth quickly took credit.
“Pilots suspension LIFTED. No punishment. No investigation. Carry on, patriots,” he posted on X at the time.
Apaches are the Army’s primary attack helicopter, being fully integrated into the force in the 1980s and seeing their combat debut during the U.S. invasion of Panama. They continued to be heavily used in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and are currently deployed in the war with Iran.
With her son George by her side, Democratic Wisconsin Gubernatorial candidate Francesca Hong votes in the primary election on Aug. 11, 2026, in Madison, Wisconsin. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Voters in six states on Tuesday decided which candidates will face off in November in House and Senate races that could determine whether the balance of power will shift in the next Congress.
Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, a centrist Democrat, narrowly won the Democratic primary in Wisconsin in a major upset in the race for governor, the Associated Press projects. He defeated Wisconsin assemblywoman Francesca Hong, a democratic socialist, in what became a high-stakes test for progressives who pinned their hopes on winning a major party nomination in a crucial battleground state.
And in Connecticut, 14-term Rep. John Larson became the seventh House Democrat incumbent to lose a primary during this election cycle.
Here’s a look at Tuesday’s primaries:
Wisconsin
Republican and Democratic candidates in Wisconsin are vying to win the first open gubernatorial seat since 2010, replacing Democratic Gov. Tony Evers, who announced last year that he wouldn’t run for reelection.
There are also primaries in both parties that could have an impact on which controls the House next year.
Incumbent Democratic Rep. John Larson will lose the Democratic primary for his 1st Congressional District seat to challenger Luke Bronin, the former mayor of Hartford, ABC News projects. Larson has held his seat since 1999. Larson is the seventh incumbent House Democrat to lose in primaries this year.
And Gov. Ned Lamont, who was elected in 2018, will fend off a primary challenge from Josh Elliott, ABC News projects. He’ll face Republican Ryan Fazio in November.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar will win the Democratic governor primary, ABC News projects, in the race to replace Democratic Gov. Tim Walz, who is retiring. She will face state House Speaker Lisa Demuth, who ABC projects will win the Republican governor’s primary, in November.
ABC News also projects Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan will win the Democratic primary in the race to replace Democratic Sen. Tina Smith, who is also retiring. She’ll face former NFL sideline reporter Michelle Tafoya, who ABC projects will win the Republican primary for Senate.
Minnesota also voted in primaries for several House races that could help determine the balance of power in Congress.
Darline Graham, the sister of the late Sen. Lindsey Graham who was appointed to fill the remainder of her brother’s term, will face Rep. Ralph Norman in an Aug. 25 runoff to replace Lindsey Graham on the November ballot, ABC News projects.
Lindsey Graham’s death in July sparked a rapid-fire campaign season. Eight other candidates besides Graham and Norman were running for the seat.
Economist Amanda Janoo will win the Democratic primary for governor, ABC News projects, and will face incumbent Republican Gov. Phil Scott in the general election in November.
In Alabama, some voters decided several House races following the Supreme Court decision that limited portions of the Voting Rights Act and led several states in the South to take part in mid-decade redistricting.
Primaries were held in May, but Republican Gov. Kay Ivey pushed back those in the 1st, 2nd, 6th and 7th districts that were impacted by redistricting after the Supreme Court decision.
