10
Loading video...
By Jenni Fink
Senior Editor
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
The Trump administration is drafting a proposal that could significantly reshape federal child care policy by allowing some parents to receive government-funded child care assistance for taking care of their own children at home, but not all Republicans are on board with it.
Under the draft plan, married couples meeting certain income requirements could qualify for assistance by using funding from the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) that was established by President Bill Clinton. Trump has made families a centerpiece of his second term by creating the Trump investment accounts, expanding the child tax credit and the new plan comes as Republicans head into a midterm election cycle with Trump's approval rating underwater.
Polling shows that moms are turning on Trump, and Fox News hosts suspect this could help Republicans in the midterms. But members of the GOP are divided on whether the plan is a solid one, with some equating it to socialism.
Read More on News
Dana Loesch, former spokesperson for the National Rifle Association, called the program an example of the "new socialist right." Conservative personality Tomi Lahren likened it to the money that was sent out during the COVID-19 pandemic that "destroyed our workforce and supply chain" and raised the possibility that it could create a "giant fraud boondoggle."
...
Jenna Ellis, a former Trump lawyer, said we need "less of this" and questioned why her tax dollars should go to paying a mom to stay home.
"All of the tradbros are missing the obvious point: isn’t that the husband’s job?" Ellis wrote.
Angela Morabito, who served as Education Department press secretary during Trump's first term, wrote on X that she's a new mom and she and her husband work.
"Taxing working moms to fund someone else's stay-at-home lifestyle is a gut punch," she wrote.
Brittany Hughes, an editor at Media Research Center, a conservative website, criticized the plan because it means that middle-class families that have two parents working have to bear the financial burden of someone else staying home with their kids.
"If we're saying we want to support SAHMs [stay-at-home moms], that support must be available to everyone, which we simply cannot afford," Hughes wrote on X. "Otherwise, we're simply demanding some families put their kids in daycare and go to work so that other, poorer families don't have to. Which is called redistribution of wealth. Which, yes, is socialism."
Related Story
Social Security Could Increase for Millions of Parents Under New Bill
Another account, MOMof DataRepublican, who is followed by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, called it "socialism, straight up," in a post on X, and not a function of the government. The grandmother criticized the program for potentially being open to fraud or incentivizing lower-income families to have more kids so they can receive a bigger check.
Not all Republicans are against the plan, though. Megan Basham, a journalist at The Daily Wire, agreed that stay-at-home moms should be able to compete for the same funding as moms who put their kids in daycare.
"I can’t think for the life of me why, if I am forced to pay the subsidy [and right now we have no choice] I should prefer to pay a daycare to take care of a child but not a parent," Basham posted on X. "I don’t want the government to fund any of this stuff at all, but I sure don’t want it ranking daycare as a better choice than mom care."
Michael Knowles, a conservative commentator, told Fox News over the weekend that it's one of the "very best" policies of the Trump administration. He called the program a "no-brainer" and that the new program would incentivize marriage and women staying home to raise their kids.
"I can't wait to see it in action," Knowles said.
Andrew Kolvet, a spokesperson for the conservative nonprofit Turning Point USA, called the policy "phenomenal." He predicted that the GOP establishment would oppose it, though.
Retired Army General Michael Flynn, who served as a national security adviser during Trump's first term, doesn't think the policy goes far enough. He called the $9,000 "insufficient" and said it should be much higher and those who are homeschooling their kids should be exempt from paying various taxes.
"This is a nice gesture [at this political point in the administration’s tenure] but wholly incomplete and not enough!" Flynn posted on X.
What Is the Stay-at-Home Parent Child Care Subsidy Proposal?
The proposal, first reported by The New York Times and confirmed by several other media outlets citing administration officials familiar with the discussions, has not yet been finalized. It still must undergo White House review and would likely be subject to a public comment period before taking effect.
If implemented, the change could become one of the most consequential federal family-policy initiatives of Trump's second term, advancing a long-standing goal of conservatives who argue that stay-at-home parents deserve the same financial support as families that use daycare centers, preschools, or other paid childcare arrangements. The proposal would create a new category of care within the Child Care and Development Fund referred to as "parent-based childcare."
Currently, the CCDF funds are typically used to help low- and moderate-income families pay for childcare providers, including daycare centers, family childcare homes, after-school programs, relatives and neighbors who meet state requirements. Parents generally cannot receive those subsidies to care for their own children.
The Trump administration's draft rule would change that.
Under the proposal, a married parent could receive childcare assistance for providing care at home to their own child while their spouse works. Supporters say the change would give families greater flexibility and recognize that raising children at home is itself valuable work.
The initiative aligns with views frequently expressed by Vice President JD Vance and other conservatives who have argued that federal policy favors institutional childcare arrangements while offering little support to parents who choose to provide care themselves.
Advocates of the proposal argue that families should be free to determine the type of childcare that best fits their circumstances and that government programs should not encourage one model over another.
Critics, however, contend that the proposal could divert scarce childcare funding away from working parents already struggling to find affordable care. Childcare advocates have warned that expanding eligibility without increasing funding could lead to longer waiting lists and fewer resources for families currently receiving assistance.
Who Could Qualify for $9,000 Payments?
While headlines have focused on a figure of roughly $9,000 per child, it's not guaranteed. The figure comes from the average value of assistance provided through the Child Care and Development Fund. Actual subsidy amounts vary considerably based on state rules, family income, children's ages, and local childcare costs.
Under the draft proposal, eligibility would be limited. According to reports, families would need to meet several requirements:
- Be a married couple.
- Have one spouse working at least 35 hours per week.
- Have the other spouse stay home to care for the child.
- Meet state income eligibility requirements.
The administration's draft reportedly excludes unmarried couples with a stay-at-home parent. Single parents who do not work also would not qualify under the proposed new category.
Current CCDF income limits vary by state, although federal law generally allows states to serve families earning up to 85 percent of statewide median income. Many states set their thresholds lower than the federal maximum. It's unclear if Trump's plan would change those income eligibility requirements or if they would keep those income requirements in place, vastly limiting the amount of people who could qualify.
The marriage requirement may become a point of legal and political contention. Legal concerns have already emerged surrounding the proposal's marriage requirement. The New York Times reported that government lawyers reviewing the draft questioned whether limiting eligibility to married couples could survive court challenges, particularly because unmarried parents who otherwise meet the program's income and caregiving requirements would be excluded from receiving benefits.
What Is The Child Care and Development Fund?
The CCDF is a major federal-state assistance program administered through the Department of Health and Human Services. Created during the 1990s, the program helps eligible low- and moderate-income families afford childcare while parents work, attend school, or participate in job training.
Federal funding is distributed to states, territories and tribal governments, which then determine specific eligibility rules and administer benefits.
Most families receive assistance through vouchers or direct payments that can be used with approved providers. Depending on state regulations, eligible providers can include childcare centers, family childcare homes, after-school programs, relatives and neighbors.
According to federal data, nearly 1 million families receive assistance through the program, and roughly 1.3 million children benefit from CCDF-funded care.
The program represents one of the largest sources of federal childcare assistance in the United States, but demand routinely exceeds available funding. Many states maintain waitlists for families seeking help and advocates have long argued that current appropriations are insufficient to meet nationwide need.
That funding shortage is central to criticism of the Trump administration proposal.
Some childcare advocates argue that because CCDF resources are already limited, adding a new category of eligible families could reduce the amount of assistance available to existing recipients unless Congress significantly increases funding.
Supporters counter that parents who provide care themselves should not be excluded from receiving assistance simply because they have chosen a different childcare arrangement.
How Much Unpaid Labor Do Stay-at-Home Parents Complete Annually?
Supporters of the administration's proposal argue that the plan recognizes a form of work that often goes uncompensated. While stay-at-home parents are not paid wages, economists and family policy researchers have long attempted to estimate the market value of the labor they perform.
According to annual estimates from salary-comparison firm Salary.com, a stay-at-home parent performing duties such as child care, meal preparation, transportation, household management, tutoring and scheduling would earn well over $150,000 annually if compensated at market rates for those services. The estimates are based on the cost of hiring professionals to perform the various jobs many stay-at-home parents handle each day.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics has also found that parents, particularly mothers of young children, spend substantial amounts of time each day on unpaid caregiving and household work. That labor can include feeding and bathing children, organizing medical appointments, helping with schoolwork, cleaning, cooking and managing a family's overall schedule. Unlike traditional employment, however, those tasks are generally not reflected in economic measures such as gross domestic product or payroll figures.
Advocates of the proposed subsidy say that imbalance is why stay-at-home parents should be eligible for government support. They argue that federal childcare programs currently subsidize families who purchase outside care while providing little financial recognition to parents who perform the same work themselves. Critics counter that while caregiving has significant economic value, limited public funds should remain focused on helping parents access childcare so they can participate in the workforce.
What Polls Show About Moms Wanting to Stay Home
Public opinion research show that American mothers hold diverse views about balancing work and caregiving responsibilities.
A 2025 Institute for Family Studies survey found that only 39 percent of mothers with children under five want to be working full time. Forty percent of married moms would prefer part-time work and 20 percent would prefer to stay home with their kids and not work at all.
At the same time, other surveys indicate that many women face significant challenges trying to balance paid employment with caregiving demands. A June 2026 Pew Research survey found working mothers were more likely than working fathers to say they struggled to give their full attention to work. Women also reported taking on a disproportionate share of household and parenting responsibilities.
Polling has also highlighted persistent expectations surrounding caregiving. A Gallup survey found that mothers were substantially more likely than fathers to be expected to stay home when childcare arrangements fell through.
Financial pressures further complicate the issue. Childcare costs have climbed dramatically over the past decade, leading some parents to conclude that staying home is economically preferable to paying for full-time care. A Catalyst survey released in 2025 found that childcare expenses were among the leading reasons women cited for leaving the workforce after becoming parents.
Yet surveys consistently show that most mothers do not fit neatly into either the stay-at-home or full-time-career categories often portrayed in political debates. Some families may view the plan as a long-overdue recognition of unpaid caregiving, while others may worry that it comes at the expense of working parents who depend on childcare subsidies to remain employed.
Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Jenni Fink and Dave Siminoff.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines