- The Washington Post reported that the Trump administration has no plans to fund IVF.
- The White House doubled down on its goal of expanding access to fertility treatments.
- Some pro-family policy advocates say IVF has opened an ethical Pandora's box.
President Donald Trump reaffirmed his commitment to expanding access to in-vitro fertilization following a report from The Washington Post that said he had abandoned a campaign promise to cover treatment costs.
On Sunday, the Post reported that the administration decided not to mandate IVF coverage via the Affordable Care Act because it could not legally classify IVF as an “essential health benefit.”
“President Trump pledged to expand access to fertility treatments for Americans who are struggling to start families,” a White House spokesperson said in a statement to the Post. “The Administration is committed like none before it to using its authorities to deliver on this pledge.”
What did Trump pledge to do for IVF?
Last August, in the midst of the 2024 presidential cycle, Trump told supporters at a Michigan campaign rally that in a second term he would facilitate access to IVF through government subsidies or health care regulations.
Trump later said again the administration would be “paying for that treatment for all Americans that get it ... or we’ll be mandating that the insurance company pay.” Trump did not provide details of how this would be done.
He did express that the reason for this policy and a proposal to implement tax deductions for newborn expenses was “because we want more babies,” and later called himself “the father of IVF” at a woman-only town hall event in October.
Patrick Brown, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center who focuses on “developing a robust pro-family economic agenda,” said Trump’s campaign pledge came when the campaign “was throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks.”
On Feb. 18, Trump issued an executive order instructing the Domestic Policy Council to provide recommendations within 90 days to protect access and reduce costs for IVF treatments that can “range from $12,000 to $25,000.”
The administration has yet to announce any new programs or rules to make IVF less expensive.
Does IVF open a Pandora’s box?
As a pro-life conservative, Brown said he is glad the administration backed off from its IVF plans. In addition to straining the federal budget and increasing health care premiums, the IVF mandate would have opened up multiple “Pandora’s boxes,” Brown said.
The IVF process results in a significant percentage of fertilized eggs being discarded, which some people view as akin to abortion.
But Brown says he believes IVF technology is changing in ways that push against traditional pro-family values.
In recent years, doctors have begun forming embryos with the DNA of three parents, U.S. parents have employed sex-selective IVF in favor of daughters, and advocacy groups have argued that IVF makes parenthood a fundamental right for anyone — or any groups of individuals, regardless of gender or marital status — who wants it.
“Are we trying to help people who have been struggling to conceive naturally have a child? ... Or are we actually using technology to remake the family? And that’s something that is profoundly unconservative,” Brown said.
Still, most Americans support IVF. For people who struggle with infertility, it is seen as a gift. A study from Pew Research Center last year found 70% of American adults support IVF access, including 63% of Republicans.
When Trump announced his executive order in February, Alabama Republican Sen. Katie Britt applauded the president’s move. “IVF is fundamentally pro-family, helping aspiring parents across our nation start and grow their families,” she said at the time
Does IVF increase the birth rate?
As he awaits the outcome of discussions by the Domestic Policy Council, Brown said he hopes the administration keeps a focus on reducing costs without pursuing IVF policies that subsidize ethically questionable experiments or create bad incentives for prospective parents.
If the government were to provide or mandate IVF coverage, it might persuade individuals to wait longer to try to have children, according to Brown. But this is risky considering the low rates of success of IVF, especially for older women.
“The idea that we would put the full faith and credit of the federal government and say, ‘Don’t worry if you can’t conceive, or if you want to put off having a family until you’re in your late 30s, because we’ll pay for it,’ that’s selling a false bill of goods because you can’t guarantee that,” Brown said.
Other countries have tried to subsidize IVF, including Israel, Japan and Spain, but they have not seen an increase in birth rates, which raises the question of whether Trump’s IVF policy would achieve its aims, Brown said.
Was the ‘big, beautiful bill’ pro-family?
While the passage of Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” made some efforts to bring down the cost of family formation it was a “mixed bag at best,” according to Brown.
The budget megabill made some positive investments in child-rearing, Brown said, providing tax credits for school vouchers and creating newborn savings accounts, but the expansion of the child tax credit to $2,200 was much less than Brown had hoped.
“The One Big beautiful Bill was kind of a dud on the pro-family side,” Brown said.
As the administration moves on from an early focus on immigration law enforcement and tariffs, Brown said it should focus more on bringing down the cost of living, and encouraging healthier lifestyles, for couples hoping to start a family.