Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

When Elle Middlemas turned 18, she began wondering whether she owned a Child Trust Fund (CTF) – a government‑backed savings account created for children born between 1 September 2002 and 2 January 2011. Her search hit a dead end; she could not confirm if she was entitled to any money and an email to HMRC yielded no response.Middlemas, a Whitby college student, explained that the loss of her mother at age 11 left her with little guidance. “My sister is 21 and spent three years looking for a fund and found nothing, so we assumed we didn’t have one,” she said, expressing the frustration felt by many of her peers.She and her sister are part of an estimated 758,000 people aged 18‑23 who have unclaimed CTFs. Collectively, these dormant accounts hold roughly £1.5 bn, a substantial sum that disproportionately belongs to low‑income families who are often unaware of its existence.Advocates are now pressing the government to automatically release CTFs when holders reach 21 years of age. Experts estimate that such a policy could inject up to £286 m directly into the pockets of young people who need it most.Middlemas finally learned of her entitlement after a conversation with a friend’s parent six months after her birthday. She discovered the Share Foundation, a charity that helps reconnect youths with their funds, and located a NatWest account bearing her name.“I had £700 sitting in my bank and thought, ‘What is going on?’ My sister also had one but never knew how to access it,” she recalled. The sisters plan to use the money to support university expenses and repay debts, underscoring the tangible impact of the scheme.The CTF programme was launched by the Labour government in 2005 to encourage parental savings. Every child received a £250 government contribution, with an additional £250 for those from low‑income families or in local authority care. Parents could add up to £9,000 per year, and any investment gains accrued until the child turned 18.If a parent failed to open an account within 12 months of birth, HMRC would create one on the child’s behalf. Today, the average value of a CTF stands at about £2,200.More than two‑thirds of the six million original recipients are now over 18 and eligible to claim their funds, with HMRC‑allocated accounts representing 28 % of all CTFs.Geographically, the North‑East of England has the highest concentration of HMRC‑allocated accounts, totalling £48 m. Across the UK, youths from the most disadvantaged 15 % of families hold accounts averaging £2,900 in value.Gavin Oldham, chief executive of the Share Foundation, warned that the scheme is hampered by poor communication, limited financial education, and “policy neglect”. He indicated the charity is considering a judicial review to compel the government to release the unclaimed assets.Oldham noted that the charity has already linked “well over 100,000 accounts to young adults”, yet the “sheer quantum of these unclaimed accounts remains a major problem”.“It is strange to find a government which expresses concern over youth poverty while doing so little to deliver on a groundbreaking scheme,” Oldham added.The charity’s proposal to release HMRC‑allocated funds automatically at 21 would free roughly £500 m, including £350 mOldham cautioned that a legal challenge, while potentially successful, could delay payouts for years, leaving vulnerable youths “denied their birthright for far too long”.Beyond immediate release, the Share Foundation is urging the creation of a new, targeted scheme for low‑income youths that embeds a financial‑awareness component, allowing participants to top up their funds through education‑linked incentives.Labour MP Laura Kyrke‑Smith echoed these concerns, describing the CTF system as “confusing and opaque” and calling for proactive tracing of account holders and clearer public information.HMRC responded that it is “directly sending every eligible young person information to help them find their child trust fund”, while also raising awareness via social media, broadcast interviews, and an online tracing tool. The agency added that banks, building societies, and investment firms managing the funds share responsibility for communicating with account holders.

Washington, D.C. – In a historic session, the United States Supreme Court examined the Trump administration’s bid to curtail the long‑standing practice of granting citizenship to anyone born on American soil. The hearing drew a sizable crowd of civil‑rights and immigration advocates who decried the proposal as unconstitutional. Lawyers representing the administration argued that the 14th Amendment has been misread for over a century and that citizenship should be limited to children of parents who are legally domiciled in the United States. They contended that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” permits the exclusion of infants born to undocumented or temporary‑status parents. Opposing counsel from the ACLU and other groups countered that the amendment’s language, reinforced by the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark decision and the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, unequivocally guarantees citizenship regardless of parental status. “The rule was enshrined in the 14th Amendment to keep it out of reach of any official who might try to destroy it,” ACLU attorney Cecillia Wang said. The proceedings were underscored by President Donald Trump’s unprecedented presence in the courtroom, making him the first sitting president to attend Supreme Court oral arguments. Trump left the hearing abruptly, later posting on Truth Social that the United States is “the only country in the world stupid enough to allow ‘birthright’ citizenship.” Protesters such as 21‑year‑old Luis Villaguzman of LULAC expressed personal stakes, noting that the policy would strip benefits from pregnant immigrant mothers and jeopardize their children’s future. “This hits close to home,” he said. Justices probed the administration’s claims, with Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson asking, “Who is domiciled?” while Justice Samuel Alito highlighted the repeated references to “domicile” in the Wong Kim Ark opinion. Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned why Congress had not clarified the citizenship scope in the 1952 statute, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett warned of the logistical chaos the order could create. Legal scholars warned that the executive order could affect roughly 255,000 infants annually, according to a joint analysis by the Migration Policy Institute and Penn State’s Population Research Institute, potentially creating a “self‑perpetuating, multigenerational underclass.” Outside the court, immigration advocates emphasized the broader implications: the measure could disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of children, many of Latino heritage, and compound the administration’s aggressive deportation agenda. The Court has not set a date for a final ruling, but the hearing offered a glimpse into the judicial scrutiny the case will face as the nation watches a potential reshaping of a core constitutional right.