Restoring the preeminence of the American family is a cornerstone of conservatism, and President Trump is reportedly working on a policy proposal that could have a big impact.
C.S. Lewis once described homemaking as the career that all other careers ultimately exist to support. “Children,” he said, “are not a distraction from more important work. They are the most important work.”
For decades, however, federal policy has quietly made the opposite value judgment: that a parent raising their own child at home is somehow less worthy of public support than a parent who pays someone else for child care.
Since the 1990s, the federal government’s Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) has helped pay for child care for low- and middle-income families—but not for parents who care for their own children at home.
As first reported by The New York Times, the Trump Administration is working on a draft proposal to extend CCDF subsidies to married couples with a stay-at-home parent. Under the plan, married couples in qualifying income brackets could receive up to $9,000 per child annually if one parent works at least 35 hours per week and the other stays home to raise the child.
This would be a massive shift in federal policy. Currently, the $12 billion CCDF serves around 1.3 million children, mostly in households with single-working parents. Because the Trump Administration’s proposal would come from existing CCDF funds rather than creating a new entitlement program, critics argue that expanding eligibility without increasing funding would squeeze out the current recipients.
Proponents counter that the change restores fairness and neutrality to a program that currently treats one legitimate caregiving choice as worthy of support and another as not—and that stay-at-home parents and single working parents alike are navigating the same rising costs and affordability pressures, so both should be able to draw on federal assistance equally.
This proposal has been championed by Vice President JD Vance and draws significantly from legislation led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio when he was in the Senate.
Some conservatives have criticized the proposal as a form of “big government” expansion, arguing that we should cut back entitlement programs, not repurpose them to pursue conservative goals like the two-parent family.
Others have cheered the draft plan. Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts made the case succinctly: “The welfare state already exists. The subsidies already exist. And conservatives do not have the votes to dismantle either. Until that changes, taxpayer dollars should reward family formation, not subsidize its decline. That is the conservative option.”
The Trump Administration’s draft proposal would not require congressional approval, but it will go through the typical rulemaking process that involves a White House policy review followed by a public comment period.
It’s worth noting that while conservatives are having a healthy debate on the subject, the radical left has already staked out a very different position: A panel at the Democratic Socialists for America’s 2025 Socialism Conference was built around framing the nuclear family as “an inherently repressive, racist, and hetero-sexist institution that functionally reinforces and reproduces capitalism”—a healthy reminder that while there are differences between conservatives, there is an ocean between us and the left.
One thing is clear: this debate isn’t going anywhere and will continue in the months ahead.
ICYMI…
- After decades of being blocked from political power (read more background here in Politico), the German conservative political party has scored a massive win in regional elections, marking a historic turning point for Europe. Read The AfD’s Moment of Triumph in Chronicles Magazine.
- The drama surrounding congressional maps isn’t finished yet in Missouri—see the latest from The Federalist: Federal Judge Reinstates Missouri’s New Election Map After Kavanaugh Declines to Get Involved
- Fox Business: Job Growth Rebounded in August with Solid Gains
- The U.S. achieved negative net migration levels for the first time since the 1930s, with recent government surveys reporting the foreign-born population has fallen by 2.9 million since January 2025 (after skyrocketing under Biden). See more in this report by the Center for Immigration Studies.