From an economist standpoint that is very true. On an individual human level they could be very meaningful to some of the recipients and make a difference in their life that helps them better provide for a future generation. Economics aren't the only way to measure success.
There is another economic consideration to the Trump accounts, which is either positive, or negative depending on your worldview.
That $3bn a year is
required to flow into US stock markets. Those are the only investment vehicles allowed; passive ETFs tracking US markets.
Typical capital inflows are around $150-300bn into the SP500 in a 'normal' year, so this represents a 1-2% bump in total money available to US companies.
The right wing view is of course that this is good for the recipient, which undeniably, it is. They'd also argue that this is the US government providing companies cash to fund investment and growth, which... is debatable.
The left wing view is that this is a direct subsidy into US large cap companies, most of whom are already enjoying vastly overinflated valuations. This provides an artificial crutch to keep their share price high by providing forced buyers. The main beneficiaries are likely to be large existing shareholders and internal company execs who can draw big bonuses from an increasing share price. Which again, arguably is true.
Personally?
Issuing government bonds, to allow US companies to inflate their share prices sounds an awful lot like government subsidy of US companies. As a guy who owns shares in those indexes, I'm not mad. As a guy who tends towards free markets and small government, I don't love it.