Trump's IVF Executive Order: More Symbol Than Substance?

President Trump's recent executive order on in vitro fertilization (IVF) has ignited discussion in political circles. While presented as an initiative to expand access and lower costs of IVF, the order's immediate impact falls short of expectations.

The order instructs a domestic policy aide to compile ideas for safeguarding IVF access and reducing costs within 90 days. However, it creates no immediate change in IVF expenses or availability. This approach aligns with Chase Strangio's description of some executive orders as "glorified press releases."

Alabama's state Supreme Court ruling in February 2024, which decided that embryos are children in wrongful death lawsuits, brought IVF into the spotlight. In response, Trump pledged during his campaign that government or insurance would cover IVF costs, addressing concerns about the declining birthrate.

The executive order mentions lifting burdens and easing regulations as a path to affordability. However, this raises questions about the prudence of reduced oversight in embryo labs. Susan Crockin from Georgetown University cautions against compromising safety and effectiveness in pursuit of low-cost solutions.

Existing proposals, like Senator Tammy Duckworth's Right to IVF Act, offer a more structured approach to expanding IVF access. Her bill aims to remove barriers based on marital status or sexual orientation while mandating coverage in military and public insurance plans. However, similar efforts have faced obstacles in the past.

The political maneuvering surrounding this executive order has resulted in generally neutral or positive press coverage. But without substantive steps, the order's impact may be limited. Is this approach sufficient to address the complex issues surrounding IVF access and affordability?

Concerns and Criticisms

• Safety Concerns: Susan Crockin from Georgetown University raises concerns about deregulating IVF, emphasizing the importance of maintaining effectiveness and safety. Deregulation could risk compromising the quality of IVF treatments, potentially jeopardizing the hopes of prospective parents.
• Lack of Force: Senator Tammy Duckworth criticizes the order as lacking the necessary force to truly expand access to IVF. She advocates for a more comprehensive legislative response, such as her Right to IVF Act, which aims to guarantee equitable access to these treatments regardless of marital status or sexual orientation.
• Rhetoric vs. Action: Critics argue that the executive order functions more as rhetoric than as a step toward tangible policy change. This situation prompts questions about the efficiency of political energy: Is it being effectively channeled, or merely dissipated in gestures that may not lead to substantial change?

Political Strategy and Implications

The executive order on IVF represents a strategic move within Trump's political approach, aimed at securing support and widening his appeal among voter demographics concerned with family formation and pro-family policies. Following the Supreme Court's decision to end federal protections for abortion under Roe v. Wade, this order attempts to reconcile previous judicial decisions with a pro-family stance that emphasizes reproductive health accessibility.

Presidents As Kids!

Donald Trump – 45/47th President (2017-2020 / 2025-present)

Joe Biden – 46th President (2021-2024)

George W. Bush – 43rd President (2001–2009)

Jimmy Carter – 39th President (1977–1981)

Bill Clinton – 42nd President (1993–2001)

Gerald Ford – 38th President (1974–1977)

George H. W. Bush – 41st President (1989–1993)

John F. Kennedy – 35th President (1961–1963)

Lyndon B. Johnson – 36th President (1963–1969)

Richard Nixon – 37th President (1969–1974)

Barack Obama – 44th President (2009–2017)

Ronald Reagan – 40th President (1981–1989)

❮ ❯

Trump's position on IVF aligns with his broader message of economic accessibility and governmental support for family building. His campaign's promises to assume financial responsibility for IVF, either through government coverage or insurance mandate, reflect a populist approach designed to resonate with families facing financial barriers to fertility treatments.

"We are going to be, under the Trump administration, we are going to be paying for that treatment," Trump told NBC News in August, adding, "We're going to be mandating that the insurance company pay."

This strategy highlights Trump's ability to craft messages that position him as both a champion of populist healthcare reforms and a defender of traditional conservative values. By focusing on voter perception rather than immediate legislative impact, Trump aims to maintain and potentially expand his base by advocating for affordable family-building options.

How will this approach balance with the party's fiscal conservatism and deregulation preferences? Can Trump's strategy effectively address the complex interplay between healthcare policy and demographic concerns while adhering to conservative principles?

1. Trump D. Executive Order on Expanding Access to In Vitro Fertilization. The White House. 2025.
2. Crockin S. Interview on IVF Regulation. Georgetown University Law Center. 2025.
3. Duckworth T. The Right to IVF Act. United States Senate. 2024.
4. Strangio C. ACLU Lawyer's Prediction on Trump Administration Executive Orders. American Civil Liberties Union. 2017.
5. Alabama Supreme Court. Ruling on Embryos in Wrongful Death Lawsuits. Alabama Judicial System. 2024.