Happy Tuesday. I’m Isaac Saul and 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. Trump reportedly called Netanyahu “fucking crazy” and said he’d be in jail if it weren’t for him, while Netanyahu’s team claims that report 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: Release the tapes!

Back stateside, we’re jumping into the Trump Accounts today (formerly known as Money Accounts for Growth and Advancement, which definitely sounds worse). 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 guns” law. It’s a 13-minute read. Strap in.

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!

Quick hits.

1. The Trump administration reportedly indicated that it will end its effort to create a $1.776 billion “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 has not taken formal steps to end the effort. (The update)
2. 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. (The call)
3. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth 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. (The blocks)
4. A panel of a U.S. appeals court ruled 2–1 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. (The ruling)
5. Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier sued OpenAI 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. (The suit)

from Today's Partner

Take the TruAge™ Test with TruDiagnostic

Take control of your health with the most comprehensive at-home blood test available.

The #1 Biological Age test available, TruAge™ reveals how old your body is at the cellular level, your speed of aging each year, and the age of your 11 key organ systems like the brain, heart, and liver. We measure key longevity biomarkers to give you personalized insights to live longer and feel healthier. No prescription or lab bloodwork needed. Delivered to your door.

TruDiagnostic analyzes over 185 biomarkers from a single finger prick of blood, providing personalized recommendations for the most impactful changes you can make today.

Discover your biological age, understand the pace at which you’re aging, and get a detailed action plan tailored to your body. All from the comfort of home. Tangle readers get 20% off with code NEWSLETTERS20.

Learn how fast you’re aging →

Today’s topic.

The Trump Accounts launch. 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. 

Back up: 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 (IRA) for tax-deferred investments in index funds. Only American children born between 2025 and 2028 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 Bessent last July in which he said, “In a way, [Trump Accounts are] a backdoor for privatizing Social Security.” Bessent 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 right on the upcoming launch of Trump Accounts, followed by Executive Editor Isaac Saul’s take.

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 Gottsegen 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,” Gottsegen 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 to 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,” Gottsegen 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 of — 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 delusional 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 a 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 or 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 ‘jump start 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.”

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 an unnecessary entitlement program.

In 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 them the money it’s 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-advantaged 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.”

My take.

Reminder: “My take” is a section where we give ourselves space to share a personal opinion. If you have feedback, criticism or compliments, don't unsubscribe. Write in by replying to this email, or leave a comment.

• Trump Accounts are as close to a straightforward win as government programs can get.
• They address a bipartisan interest, are being rolled out cleanly, and could provide tremendous upside.
• Accessibility for lower-income families will be a concern, but I’m glad the government is taking a big swing at a big problem.

Executive Editor Isaac Saul: I rarely view a policy as an unambiguous win, but this one comes pretty close.

Here are a few operating assumptions 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 times, and it causes significant fraying of the social order.
• We are a rich, innovative country, and our government should act like it by taking big swings and experimenting more.

The Trump Accounts check 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 person who wants one for their child to 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 disburse 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 Robinhood, 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, and I signed him up this morning. I haven’t completed the identity-verification step yet, but it looks like a simple tax form that should take about 10 to 15 minutes to complete. Getting him into the system took all of two minutes; the app itself demonstrates how you can grow the account to $112,000 over 18 years with regular contributions, and there’s something accessible about the 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 form 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 fertility 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. And it has a good enough chance of working that it's worth trying. 

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 flair — his ability to raise interest among wealthy donors and draw in private sector support for his initiatives. 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 Gottsegen (under “What the left is saying”) rightly 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 $1,000 government 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 probably loom larger for low-income families who are exempt from filing taxes and thus less 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 second-order benefit to me. 

Ultimately, I see the potential upside outweighing the potential downsides by a long shot. Even if you think this program will benefit wealthy families more than poor ones, it’s still true that a low-income family could take a no-brainer $1,000 from the government for free, then let it appreciate, all with 20 minutes of work. 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.

All told: 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 a bipartisan idea, 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. 

Take the survey: How would you use a Trump Account? Let us know.

Disagree? That's okay. Our opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.

Your questions, answered.

Q: How much truth is there to the argument that European social safety nets are propped up by American military spending? 

— Lauren from London, England

Tangle: 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 North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) defense spending — that is, money going toward defense specifically for NATO allies, which are largely in Europe — the U.S. leads the way. The U.S. 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 U.S.’s 3.2% spent on defense outpaces the non–U.S. NATO average of 2.3% (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 (EU) 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 spend over 30% of GDP on social services, while the Baltic states spend under 19% (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 and proportionally, spend much more proportionally 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.

Want to have a question answered in the newsletter? You can reply to this email (it goes straight to our inbox) or fill out this form.

Under the radar.

On May 27, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) signed the state’s budget for fiscal year 2027, 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 the story.

Numbers.

• 3,606,400. The number of U.S. births in 2025, according to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate.
• 121. The estimated number of child savings account programs operated in 38 states in 2023, according to Prosperity Now.
• 5.8 million. The estimated number of American children who had child savings accounts in 2023.
• 26%. The percentage of child savings accounts programs operated through state and local government agencies.
• 91%. The percentage of children whose savings accounts come from government programs.
• 59%. The percentage of American adults who say they have money invested in a retirement savings account, such as a 401(k), 403(b) or IRA, according to an April 2025 Gallup News poll.

The extras.

• One year ago today we covered a court ruling on Trump’s tariffs.
• The most clicked link in our last regular newsletter was the musical artists who pulled out of the national 250th anniversary event. 
• Nothing to do with politics: Samuel floors his school’s talent show by performing his vast collection of bird calls.
• Our last survey: 2,007 readers responded to our survey on the Maine Senate election with 41% saying they believe Sen. Susan Collins (R) will win. “The Democratic vote will be split, so the Republican candidate will win,” one respondent said. “These scandals just seem to not matter anymore. A return to ‘decency’ would be great, but bigger issues currently exist for voters,” said another.

Have a nice day.

Six years ago, graduates of the University of Virginia started a new tradition: They would carry fun, themed balloons to 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 2026 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, this is the best of UVA. It’s people who care about the traditions, but care about what the traditions mean and what the traditions can do beyond just the sort of aesthetics of a balloon, but about the societal good that so many UVA students will be there.” CBS 19 has the story.