On January 24, 2025, J.D. Vance took the stage at the March for Life for his first public address as vice president of the United States.
“I want more babies in the United States of America,” he told the crowd. “I want more happy children in our country, and I want beautiful young men and women who are eager to welcome them into the world and eager to raise them. And it is the task of our government to make it easier for young moms and dads to afford to have kids, to bring them into the world, and to welcome them as the blessings that we know they are here at the March for Life.”
For many pro-family advocates and other political observers, those remarks were more than just talking points to get applause from a crowd that largely agreed with him. It was a potential statement of policy from the new administration.
President Donald Trump had entered the White House days before, his win in November threatening to smash much of the right’s traditional orthodoxies by elevating previously marginalized voices in the Republican coalition and bringing in new ones. In particular, advocates aiming to push policies to help people form and support families and reverse the nation’s falling fertility rate were poised to propose ideas that were previously foreign to the GOP.
A year into Trump’s administration, however, family policy advocates’ window of opportunity has closed. While they achieved some wins from the White House and the Republican-controlled Congress, they fell short of their most ambitious goals.
Bonus promises.
On March 4, 2023, Trump delivered remarks at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference. Much of history will remember his speech there for its “I am your retribution” line, but it also contained an early promise on family policy.
“We will support baby bonuses for a new baby boom,” Trump said, referencing a policy that some governments around the world have instituted. Upon the birth of a new baby, parents will receive money meant to help families cover the costs in a child’s early years, incentivize adults to have more children, or both. Along with other types of pro-natalist benefits, the policy has not proven itself as a child-bearing incentive, but it can still soften the financial blow of a new birth for parents. After he was elected, Trump revisited the topic, saying in April 2025 that a $5,000 baby bonus “sounds like a good idea to me.”
Another policy priority for family advocates was further expanding the child tax credit (CTC), which the passage of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act had boosted from $1,000 per child each year to $2,000. However, inflation quickly devalued the increase—Americans would have needed more than $2,600 in 2025 to have the same buying power as $2,000 in 2017.
Trump’s opportunity to put a baby bonus in place and increase the CTC was the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), the tax-and-spending law that he muscled through Congress. The final bill had some semblance of both these campaign promises, but not in the way that family policy advocates wanted.
“It was going to be swimming upstream for this administration to be as pro-family as I would have wanted it to be,” said Patrick T. Brown, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center studying family policy. “But I think there were a lot of people who thought there was going to be more attention paid to these questions.”
Instead of a baby bonus, the bill contained a provision for “Trump Accounts.” Working much like IRAs, the accounts allow parents to invest money that their children can tap into once they turn 18. For children born between 2025 and 2028, the federal government will make an initial contribution of $1,000 to these accounts, which kids can use to help pay for college or a first home only once they become adults. That was not exactly what baby bonus proponents had in mind; they favored direct help for families at the time of a birth rather than deferred investments.
“A baby bonus is about helping parents at the time when their need is a lot more acute, right when a baby comes,” said Leah Libresco Sargeant, a senior policy analyst on the Niskanen Center’s social policy team. “Because when parents have a baby, the parents are younger, they’re earlier in their career. Their earning potential is lower, their savings are lower than they’ll be later. The money goes a lot farther then than it does stashed in a savings account until their kids are 18.”
The OBBBA did expand the CTC, but not to the $5,000 level that Vance argued for during the campaign. Its new total is $2,200, which is still effectively a decrease from 2017 due to inflation. Congress did, however, set it up so that it will be indexed with inflation permanently going forward, meaning it will automatically be adjusted to the cost of living. Libresco Sargeant called the indexing a “big win,” while Brown gave the overall expansion a “B-minus” grade, praising the future adjustments for inflation.
Asked about the family policy pieces of the OBBBA, a spokesperson for the Senate Finance Committee, which was the primary architect of the law’s tax section, directed The Dispatch to fact sheets touting the CTC and other provisions. The bill also boosted the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit and enhanced tax credits that incentivize businesses to provide paid family and medical leave and child care to their employees.
A boost for IVF.
Those who favored direct government financial support to families found themselves at odds with another pro-family faction within the GOP that balked at such policies. Instead, this group, which found its way into the Republican coalition during the 2024 campaign, embraced assisted reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization (IVF), seeking to make it more affordable and accessible for Americans.
Trump’s campaign promise to compel insurance to cover IVF, or have the government pay for it, fit well with the technologically minded pro-natalists he was bringing into the GOP at the time. X owner Elon Musk gained notoriety for his personal efforts to reverse America’s birth dearth by fathering at least 14 children—some of whom were conceived through IVF—with four different women.
Campaigning for Trump in 2024, the tech billionaire advocated for using assisted reproductive technologies to help Americans have more children. “We need to have babies by whatever means, whether it’s IVF, surrogacy, whatever the case may be. That can certainly help,” Musk said in an October 2024 event in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. “But we just can’t go extinct.”
Once Trump was inaugurated and brought Musk along with him as head of the Department of Government Efficiency, he signed an executive order in February 2025 calling for policy recommendations to make IVF more affordable and accessible. With Musk playing such a big part in the administration, there was a real possibility that he would influence Trump to follow through with his campaign promise.
Ultimately, however, Trump and Musk had a falling-out in June after Musk’s criticisms of the OBBBA’s impact on the national debt. Trump later released a policy memo on IVF in October that fell well short of what he touted while campaigning, thanks in part to the lobbying of pro-life and other socially conservative groups. The main thrust of the White House initiative included efforts to make more affordable the drugs that women use when preparing to undergo IVF and instituting new regulations aiming to make it easier for employers to include insurance coverage for IVF for employees.
Even though the plan was not as expansive as Trump promised, it does have its defenders. Influencers Malcolm and Simone Collins have become the spokespeople for the tech-right side of the pro-natalist movement. They have had five children through IVF already and hope to have upwards of 10 when they’re finished, planning to implant their next embryo in the summer. Malcolm Collins argued that the discounts drugmakers offer on fertility medications via the administration’s new TrumpRx website make a huge difference for those pursuing IVF.
“This for a family like ours can mean the savings of, like, tens of thousands of dollars in a year,” he told The Dispatch. “And I did not expect that from an administration. Like, that’s crazy. That is crazy for families that take having kids very seriously.”
Broadly speaking, though, it is difficult to tell just how much more accessible the drug savings will make IVF for families, because the cost of IVF procedures, which can range from around $12,000 to $25,000, involves more than simply fertility drugs. By the administration’s own estimates, a woman can save $2,200 per cycle of IVF on medications under its new initiative, which still leaves a lot of the cost for users to cover.
“This move alone does not make IVF attainable for most patients,” Sean Tipton, chief advocacy and policy officer at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, said in a statement earlier this month. “Fertility drugs represent only one portion of the overall cost of care, and patients without good insurance coverage continue to face significant out-of-pocket expenses.”
What’s next for family policy?
The prospect of getting a more comprehensive family policy is dim, at least for the rest of the Trump administration. Trump has ruled out another budget reconciliation package before the 2026 midterms, and Democrats are likely to take the House of Representatives in November. A divided government could produce some form of family policy, though. Republicans and Democrats worked across party lines in 2024 in a failed attempt to enhance the CTC, and members of both parties have proposed bills aimed at keeping IVF legal and making it more accessible.
But while the efforts to inject stronger pro-family elements into GOP policymaking have lost some momentum, they will likely be reanimated in the future.
Brown noted that it is generally younger Republicans who are thinking about ways in which the government can financially support families. He cited Vance, as well as Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who championed expanding the CTC when he was a senator, and Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, who has supported expanding the CTC to $5,000. There is also a significant number of Republican staffers, both in Congress and the executive branch, who are open to the federal government taking a more direct role in supporting American families.
“Hawley, Vance, Rubio, a lot of people who are staffing this administration for the first time this time around compared to last time around—they are much more interested in these questions, and there’s a lot more dynamism and interest in those things,” Brown said.