While the White House has been willing to push the plan, reaction has been divided.

The White House’s argument is that Trump Accounts offer millions of children a way to access stock ownership in the United States, something it says has historically been “unequally distributed, with many households – especially younger, lower-income families – having little or no exposure.”

However, Will McBride, chief economist at the Tax Foundation think tank, says the plan is too complicated to sign up for, which he believes will lead to a “minority benefiting.”

He suggests that those who will benefit will be parents of children who are “relatively well-informed, relatively well-off, relatively attuned to [and] act together.”

However, Andy Blocker, head of policy, regulation and government relations at financial services firm Edward Jones, believes the $1,000 contribution for babies born during Trump’s second term will remove the “barrier of having nothing to start with.”

“If by the end of the year more families have a clear path to start saving and investing for their children’s financial future, that is a success,” he suggests.

Adam Michel, director of fiscal policy studies at the Cato Institute, says the plan’s idea is admirable, but warns that it might “not live up to the rhetoric.”

He says the main benefit is the initial $1,000 subsidy, but suggests many families would be better off using existing savings accounts.

He also points out barriers such as early withdrawal penalties, as seen in other savings accounts, and adds that low-income children may feel obligated to withdraw the money when they turn 18 to “help make ends meet,” and therefore have to pay a penalty. “The Trump accounts don’t solve that problem.”