How Adult ‘Trump Accounts’ Could Reshape Owning a Home in Retirement
Last week, the president announced that the government had deposited the first $1,000 into more than 500,000 “Trump Accounts.”
The program is intended to get the next generation of Americans invested in the stock market and build wealth from the day they’re born.
But during his press appearance last Monday, Donald Trump revisited the idea of also launching accounts for adults that would mirror Australia’s retirement savings plan.
Calling it “very popular” with the Australian people, he claimed that his administration plans to speak with Congress to see whether it can actually be implemented in America.
“It’s something that’s going to be great, I think, if we can get it done,” he said. “And we’re going to try very hard.”
As concerns over the future of Social Security reach a peak—and with most homeowners across the country reliant on government-backed retirement funds to afford housing during their golden years—has the president finally found a solution to save retirement?
How Australia handles retirement
Implemented in 1992, Australia’s retirement system is built around “superannuation,” a mandatory savings program that requires employers to contribute 12% of a worker’s ordinary earnings into tax-favored retirement accounts, according to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.
The accounts are managed largely by private funds, and the balances become available in full at age 65 or as early as age 60 if the worker has stopped working.
While there are very strict rules in place restricting access to these accounts before retirement, one exception is using these “super” funds to buy a first home.
However, in order to do so, buyers need to be contributing additional “voluntary” funds to the account.
Meanwhile, Americans—especially homeowners—fear retirement
Though not mandatory, Australia’s concept is similar to an employer-matched 401(k) plan, in that employers contribute money into the retirement accounts set up through their companies.
But that is where the similarities end.
“The Australian system works because it’s mandatory and universal,” explains Evan Mills, a financial adviser at Scholar Advising.
“It’s been built into payroll from the start. The U.S. 401(k) system is a little more fragile. Employer matches and employee contributions are both voluntary, and neither is usually anywhere near 12%.”
Indeed, the average match by employers was 4.6% of pay, and the median was 4.0%, according to Vanguard’s most recent annual report on investing behavior.
But even if employers were compelled to bump up contributions to 12%, roughly 56 million Americans lack access to an employer-sponsored retirement plan at work, according to 2025 research from the Pew Charitable Trusts.
Because of this, in America, the primary way seniors fund their retirement is through Social Security, which has been in place since 1935. As Americans work, they pay taxes directly into the system, which pays benefits to current retirees with the promise that the next generation will do the same.
However, for the past 16 years, the cost of the Social Security retirement program has exceeded the amount it receives from taxes collected, forcing it to dip into its trust fund reserves to cover the shortfall.
It has been widely reported that by 2032, those reserves will be depleted, and if there is no intervention, seniors will have to learn to live with far less than before.
And that would be nearly impossible while owning a home.
In the last five years, the cost of homeownership has jumped 26% and, as of now, Social Security alone is enough to cover the living expenses in only 10 states, according to the Realtor.com® analysis of median Social Security benefits by state and the Elder Economic Security Standard Index.
And yet, nearly 22 million seniors are estimated to live on Social Security alone, according to a June 2025 study from The Senior Citizens League, so the funding is vital for seniors’ quality of life.
Adopting Australia’s strategy: bigger problems than a solution?
Clearly, in order for seniors to afford to live in their homes through retirement, they’ll need a helping hand.
Given that Republicans have long argued in favor of privatizing Social Security, and that the latest Mercer CFA Institute Global Pension Index awards the Australian system a B+, it’s clear why President Trump thinks adopting Australia’s retirement program would be a good idea.
But in reality, a lot would have to change in order for this to work.
“Social Security acts as a guaranteed income floor, while superannuation funds are investment account balances,” says Mills. “Those two things are not interchangeable because they protect different aspects of retirement.”
For starters, the U.S. would clearly need to dramatically expand access to workplace retirement plans in order for this idea to work—and forcing employers to suddenly pay a mandatory percentage of a worker’s salary into a retirement account would represent a massive new tax on businesses.
“Large companies might be able to absorb it over time, but small businesses would really struggle to implement it,” says Mills.
“There’s no free lunch, so the cost would show up in slower wage growth, maybe reduced hiring, higher prices, the stuff that gets pushed onto the consumer or the employee.”
“A 12% contribution sounds like a benefit, but it’s still compensation,” he adds. “It’s just taking from today’s paycheck and routing it into a retirement account instead. This is not always a bad thing since many Americans do not think about retirement savings, but this should be seen as mandated savings—not free money.”
Furthermore, transitioning from a sole system where current workers pay for current retirees (Social Security) to a system where workers save only for themselves (superannuation) risks creating a “missing generation” of funding.
“The transition would be a huge issue for current workers and retirees,” suggests Mills.
“Redirecting the payroll tax into personal accounts doesn’t solve the problem of Social Security being underfunded right now, and it definitely doesn’t solve for current retirees who are relying on today’s workers to fund their Social Security.”
“A superannuation fund might help tomorrow’s retirees, but it doesn’t magically pay for today’s retirees,” he adds
While no answer will make everyone happy, if the administration is serious about adopting Australia’s approach, the best strategy would be to model their robust multipillar system that includes both the mandatory “superannuation” (private savings), as well as a publicly funded, means-tested safety net called the “age pension” funded by general tax revenues.
That’s why, as Sen. Elizabeth Warren argued earlier this summer, Social Security still needs to be shored up for the millions of Americans who have been paying into it all these years, so they can keep their homes and continue to pay expenses like property taxes and home insurance without interruption.
“Social Security should still be the foundation, and you build these super-style accounts on top of it,” says Mills.
“You don’t tear out the foundation to add onto your home, you build on top of it.”
His recommendation? Policymakers need to find ways to turn Social Security into a more means-tested benefit, like Australia has now.
“Higher-income, higher-asset households would be pushed to rely more on their own accounts, while lower-income households get a bigger benefit from that guaranteed floor. That’s how you phase something down without ever saying you phased it out. Social Security stays on paper but becomes less central for households with assets, and I don’t see that as a major issue for those higher-income households.”
Get real estate news in your inbox
