When President Trump tapped J.D. Vance as his pick for Vice President, it seemed likely that the second Trump administration would place special emphasis on family policy. 

Prior to his political career, Vance highlighted fertility decline as a core issue. As a politician, Vance continued to emphasize fertility and family policy, suggesting it’s necessary to “go to war against anti-child ideology” and urging America to follow Hungary’s pro-natal policy initiatives. 

For his part, Trump has said, “We want to make it easier for all couples to have babies, raise children, and start the families they have always dreamed about.” For some conservatives, especially, that meant that the second Trump administration rode in on high hopes.

However, one year in, the administration’s pro-natal and family policy initiatives are limited. Over the past year, the most significant fertility and family initiatives include provisions in the Working Families Tax Cut/One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), an executive order on in-vitro fertilization (IVF), and a Department of Transportation order that prioritizes transportation funding for higher-fertility communities. 

Of these actions, the OBBBA is the most substantive. Vice President Vance was surely involved in selling some of the family measures, especially “Trump Accounts” and the topped-up Child Tax Credit. Beyond that, OBBBA provisions make the paid leave tax credit permanent and increase the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit, though it’s less clear how much the administration had to do with these specific provisions.

Trump Accounts are likely the most significant of the OBBBA initiatives. Under the policy, the government will deposit $1,000 into an account for children born between 2025 and 2028. The accounts allow parents and other entities to make additional contributions and save for the child’s future. 

However, the details limit the program’s utility. For instance, while withdrawals are allowed when the child turns 18, they are penalized until age 59 ½, with various exceptions and limitations (e.g., withdrawals of up to $10,000 for buying a new home are not penalized).

Although saving is no doubt an underappreciated virtue in America today, Trump Accounts are not the best way for most families to save. Financial advisors and other analysts have suggested that most parents take the $1,000 deposit but avoid making additional contributions to the accounts. Instead, contributing to 529s or custodial Roth accounts is a better option. 

While Trump Accounts reward births (they were once referred to as “newborn accounts”) as a fertility incentive, they almost certainly fail to accomplish anything meaningful. It seems highly unlikely that a $1,000 benefit, which children cannot access until 18 years later, would meaningfully change would-be parents’ calculus. At best, the benefit may move a small number of births forward in time so that children can receive the federal deposit.

In addition to Trump Accounts, the topped-up Child Tax Credit permanently expanded the maximum credit by $200 and indexed it to inflation. However, this modest change is largely ineffective at achieving goals like reducing poverty, improving affordability, or increasing fertility. In fact, the CTC itself is largely ineffective at achieving those goals to begin with.

The administration has also put forward a couple of its own initiatives, including increasing IVF access, which Trump ran on. Unlike the OBBBA policies, the administration couched its IVF executive order messaging from earlier this year in pro-natal language. But IVF, paradoxically, is a questionable vehicle to increase fertility because the insurance of greater IVF access may create incentives to delay births for would-be parents. Fertility treatment is not a guarantee of fertility success, and success rates decline with patient age. 

The IVF executive order has so far resulted in Most Favored Nation (MFN) pricing for some fertility drugs, the fast-tracking of an FDA review for an unnamed fertility drug, and the administration issuing guidance on how employers can offer fertility benefits as a standalone benefit. Improving drug review times and providing guidance for employers are positive, if small, steps in increasing access to IVF without subsidizing treatment. However, health policy experts have criticized MFN drug pricing for being ineffective, gameable, and reducing the incentive for pharmaceutical research. 

Finally, the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) order prioritizing transportation funding for communities with higher birth and marriage rates seems particularly ineffective. Given the limitations of generous direct fertility subsidies, the idea that indirect subsidies will motivate parents to reassess the benefits and costs of childbearing seems highly improbable. 

Not only is the average parent unlikely to know that their community is receiving more transportation funding due to the community’s collective birth or marriage rate, but they aren’t likely to care enough for it to change their personal decision calculus. So far, the order is in effect, but legal challenges have created uncertainty.

In summary, the Trump administration’s family policies have been limited so far. If there is one theme, it is that most initiatives have an affordability angle. Affordability is a sound policy and political focus. On the political side, exit polls from last November’s election indicate voters are motivated by affordability and inflation concerns, and this is likely especially true for families with dependent children.

If affordability is what the Trump administration is after, there are more straightforward ways to achieve it. Going forward, the administration should focus on policies that unleash supply and avoid fueling demand while allowing families to keep more of what they earn and making it easier for them to save.

The administration should emphasize the elimination of supply-restricting policies at the federal and local levels. It is essential that the administration continue reducing environmental regulations that restrict energy production. Federal officials should urge local policymakers to remove zoning regulations that block housing development and occupational licensing regulations that limit labor supply. 

Grocery costs remain a pain point for many. Rather than pressuring meatpackers, the administration should eliminate the renewable fuel standard, which increases the cost of corn and puts upward pressure on livestock feed grains, thereby contributing to meat and dairy costs. The White House should also consider that, while its immigration policy has resulted in a more secure border, it has also reduced the availability of agricultural workers, which is likely to affect food costs. 

To avoid inflationary increases in demand, the administration should limit spending and reject additional budget-busting spending, including tariff rebate checks. The Trump administration should eliminate tariffs that represent an average $1,400 tax per household in 2026.

Finally, future tax policy should prioritize the creation of Universal Savings Accounts (USAs). USAs have been adopted elsewhere and provide a savings vehicle without the complexity, restrictions, and overhead associated with existing U.S. savings accounts, including Trump Accounts. USAs provide families at all income levels with a greater incentive to save.

The second Trump administration still has time to refocus on effective reforms with a track record of improving affordability for families, and improving affordability is a positive, realistic focus for family policy. With work, there’s still time to make a meaningful difference in American families’ lives.