Estate planning is not just about drafting documents—it’s about deciding who will carry out your final wishes. Who Americans choose to manage their estate reflects deep-seated values, cultural norms, and evolving generational attitudes toward trust and responsibility.
At the same time, trust is not just about naming an executor or trustee—it extends to who Americans are willing to discuss their plans with. Do people share their estate plans with loved ones? If not, why? What sparks disagreements in these conversations? These questions paint a more complete picture of how Americans navigate trust in estate planning—not just in legal documents, but within their own families.
The Executor Divide: Younger Generations Look Beyond Family
Historically, estate planning has been a family affair, with most Americans choosing a trusted relative to act as executor or trustee. In 2025, this trend continues, with 63% of all respondents naming a family member to manage their estate. However, a generational shift is underway, signaling a growing willingness to look beyond family.
The Silent Generation is the most likely to entrust estate management to a family member (87%), reinforcing the long-standing tradition of keeping financial affairs within the family. Gen Z, however, is 50% less likely to choose family members (just 36%), instead turning to professional fiduciaries (26%) and financial advisors (23%)—more than ten times the rate of the Silent Generation (2%).
Millennials also show signs of this trend, with 38% opting for a professional, compared to just 4% of Baby Boomers.
This generational divergence suggests that trust in institutions may be growing among younger Americans, who view estate management as a financial task rather than a personal obligation. The digitization of financial services, declining reliance on traditional family structures, and increased financial complexity may all be contributing factors.
Gender & Trust: Men Are More Likely to Choose Professionals
While women and men share many estate planning priorities, their approaches to naming an executor or trustee are notably different. Men are 69% more likely than women to select a professional (fiduciary or financial advisor), whereas women are 19% more likely to choose a family member (68% vs. 57%).
This gender-based contrast may reflect differing priorities in estate management. Women, who often take on caregiving roles, may place greater emphasis on family bonds and personal values in their selection process. Men, on the other hand, may prioritize expertise and efficiency, opting for professionals who can handle complex financial matters objectively.
Education and Urban Influence: Who Chooses Professionals?
Educational background and geographic location also shape estate management decisions.
Those with a high school degree or less are 41% more likely to choose a non-family member as their executor or trustee (25%) compared to those with a bachelor’s degree or higher (18%). This suggests that individuals with less formal education may place greater trust in friends or loved ones outside their family, while those with higher education may feel more comfortable keeping estate responsibilities within the family circle.
One possible explanation is that individuals with higher education levels may have greater exposure to legal and financial systems, making them more confident in navigating estate planning within their own family, whereas those with less formal education may seek out trusted individuals beyond their immediate relatives for guidance and support.
Geographically, urban residents are the most likely to select a professional – fiduciary or financial advisor – (24%), while rural residents are the least likely (11%). The availability of legal and financial professionals in urban areas, as well as greater exposure to wealth management services, may help explain this difference.
Who Americans Trust to Raise Their Children
For parents of minor children, choosing a guardian is one of the most significant estate planning decisions they will ever make. The data reveals that immediate family members remain the overwhelming choice:
34% name a sibling as the guardian of their children.
33% name one or both parents, a choice that declines with age—just 7% of Baby Boomers select parents, compared to 47% of Gen Z parents.
18% select another relative, such as a cousin, uncle, or aunt.
11% name a non-family member, signaling a small but notable group that looks outside of blood relatives for guardianship.
Not surprisingly, as respondents age, they shift away from naming parents and toward siblings or extended family members. This reflects a natural life stage progression, as older respondents’ parents are less likely to be living or physically capable of serving as guardians.
However, the 11% who choose a non-family member raise an interesting question: Are shifting societal norms, blended families, and diverse social circles reshaping traditional views on guardianship? While this number may seem small in isolation, certain groups are significantly more likely to name a non-family member as their child’s guardian.
Wealthier individuals are more than twice as likely to choose a non-family guardian. Among those earning $250,000–$499,999, 26% selected a non-family member—a 136% increase compared to the overall average. This suggests that higher-income individuals may have closer relationships with financial professionals, trusted advisors, or long-time family friends who they feel are better equipped to provide stability and manage their children’s inheritance.
Political ideology plays a surprising role in guardianship decisions. Libertarians were the most likely group to choose a non-family guardian, with 33% making this selection—a 300% increase compared to Democrats (8%) and 175% higher than Republicans (12%). This suggests that those with Libertarian values, who tend to emphasize individual autonomy and personal choice, may place a stronger emphasis on selecting a guardian based on personal trust rather than familial obligation.
Racial differences highlight unique cultural perspectives on guardianship. Native and Biracial respondents were 36% and 27% more likely, respectively, to name a non-family member compared to the overall average. This could indicate a greater reliance on community ties, extended social networks, or close friends who function as family within these cultural groups.
Ultimately, while family remains the dominant choice, these shifts reflect a modern reality: trust is no longer solely defined by bloodlines, but by relationships, values, and preparedness.
The Silence Around Estate Planning: Who’s Talking, Who’s Not?
Estate planning is not just about who you name on paper—it’s about who you trust enough to share your plans with. Despite the importance of open conversations, a significant portion of Americans never discuss their estate plans with loved ones.
Older generations are far more likely to have these discussions. 87% of the Silent Generation have shared their plans, compared to just 64% of Gen Z—a 36% difference. This trend clearly increases with age, as Baby Boomers and Gen X also outpace Millennials and Gen Z in estate planning discussions.
This could be influenced by a variety of factors. Younger generations may feel less urgency to discuss estate planning due to fewer life milestones, such as having children or significant assets. Cultural shifts toward privacy and reliance on digital documentation might also play a role in why Millennials and Gen Z are less likely to have these conversations with loved ones.
Education also plays a key role: those with a doctorate (85%) are 23% more likely to have discussed their estate plan than those with less than a high school education (69%). Similarly, the likelihood of discussing estate plans consistently increases with each level of education.
Finally, race can impact estate planning transparency — White respondents (81%) are the most likely to have shared their plans, while Black respondents (70%) are the least likely.
Why Are Some Americans Avoiding These Conversations?
While many Americans have shared their estate plan with a loved one, nearly 20% have not, raising important questions: Why do some people hesitate to discuss their wishes? And when they do, why do these conversations sometimes lead to conflict?
One of the biggest barriers to estate planning discussions is simple procrastination. Among those who have not shared their estate plan, 40% say they intend to have this conversation in the future. However, delaying these discussions can have long-term consequences, leaving loved ones unprepared when the time comes.
Other common reasons cited include:
Family dynamics make it difficult (24%)
It’s an uncomfortable topic (23%)
I don’t know where to start (21%)
For many, avoiding estate planning discussions is not just about discomfort—it is about preventing disputes. Even when families do talk about their estate plans, tensions can arise. While 62% of respondents who have shared their estate plans reported no conflicts, the remaining 38% have experienced disagreements, highlighting estate planning as a major source of family friction.
The most common points of conflict are:
Asset distribution (17%)—Who gets what, and why? This is the single most common reason for disagreements.
Executor/trustee decisions (16%)—Choosing the person responsible for managing an estate can create friction, especially if family members feel overlooked or unqualified individuals are chosen.
Guardianship decisions (14%)—Particularly contentious among families with young children, as different relatives may have competing views on who is best suited to raise them.
When analyzing these family disagreements through a demographic lens, certain groups are far more likely to report different topics. For example, Gen Z and Millennials are almost 7 times more likely than Baby Boomers to experience guardianship-related disputes (38% and 30% vs. 4%). Men are 67% more likely than women to report tensions over estate planning decisions, particularly regarding asset distribution and executor selection. And urban families are 58% more likely than suburban or rural families to experience disagreements of any kind, likely due to more complex family structures or financial arrangements.
Race also plays a critical role when it comes to family disagreements around estate planning: White respondents are 73% more likely to have conflict-free estate planning conversations, while 60% of non-white respondents report experiencing some level of disagreement.
Diving even deeper, Guardianship decisions are the most contentious issue among Black (31%) and Hispanic (32%) respondents—more than double the overall average (14%)—potentially reflecting strong cultural expectations around caregiving. Meanwhile, Asian (28%) and biracial (31%) respondents report the most tension around asset distribution, possibly tied to differences in wealth transfer expectations. Among Native respondents, charitable giving (26%) is the biggest point of disagreement—more than three times the overall average (8%)—which may highlight a greater emphasis on community-focused wealth distribution
Ultimately, estate planning discussions—while essential—are not always easy. The data suggests that avoiding these conversations does not prevent conflict but by fostering transparency, families can mitigate potential disputes and ensure that their wishes are honored in a way that brings clarity rather than conflict.
These insights were unveiled in the groundbreaking 2025 Trust & Will Estate Planning Report—the largest estate planning survey ever conducted. Click here to view the full report.
Trust & Will is an online service providing legal forms and information. We are not a law firm and we do not provide legal advice.
Share this article