Despite Trump's pledge, IVF will remain out of reach for many

But the Right to IVF Act actually really would make a difference.

When the White House issued the Expanding Access to In Vitro Fertilization executive order in February, President Donald Trump, the self-declared “father of IVF,” pledged he was going to lower costs and make the procedure more accessible.

The Contrarian raised several red flags at the time, including the limitations of insurance mandates, likely ties to a pronatalist agenda, and whether certain families would be excluded. We noted, too, that the order itself was vague and needed detailed policy analysis, which the administration committed to produce within 90 days. No such document has been released.

Nonetheless, last week Trump claimed to make good on his word, unveiling a deal with drug manufacturer EMD Serono and two specialty pharmacies, CVS Specialty and Express Scripts, to discount the sticker price of certain IVF drugs. The New York Times reported that EMD Serono’s offering will be part of TrumpRx.gov, and that the company is among those willing to strike a deal with the president to avoid regulatory burdens and the threat of tariffs.

The White House simultaneously announced it is working on an “employer benefit option” to encourage more workplaces to offer IVF coverage directly to employees—though it is far from clear how many companies will choose to participate given there is no mandate or subsidies to incentivize them. At present, only around one in four employers with more than 200 employees covers IVF. In a public statement, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) noted all the White House accomplished was to “politely ask companies to add IVF coverage out of the goodness of their own hearts – with zero federal investment and no requirement for them to follow through.”

Even for those who can take advantage of lower drug prices, treatment will likely remain unaffordable and out of reach. The prescription medications used are not the only cost associated with IVF; other medical expenses include lab visits, genetic testing, and embryo transfer procedures, and they can run as much as $20,000. According to the White House’s own fact sheet, the medications account for about 20 percent of the total cost.

There is, in fact, an alternative to the Trump plan: The Right to IVF Act, introduced by Sen. Tammy Duckworth, would require employer-sponsored health plans and public health insurance, including Medicaid and military plans, to cover treatments. The bill also addresses discrimination and forbids the restriction of access to IVF based on marital status or sexual orientation. Republicans have voted it down twice.

That did not stop Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) from suggesting that last week’s announcement is the “most pro-IVF thing that any president in the history of the United States of America has done.” Sean Tipton, chief advocacy and policy officer of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, responded, “I think that indicates what a tremendously low bar that is,” and underscored that “it is a whole lot less than he promised in the campaign.”

Of course, the president’s announcement comes as the federal government rolls past week three of a contentious shutdown, in which healthcare subsidies are at the center of the fight. Tax credits that have made coverage more affordable for those who rely on state or federal marketplace health insurance plans will expire this year if Congress doesn’t extend them. Even among those who might realize savings from Trump’s IVF discount, the difference could be instantly canceled out by a rise in premiums.

The IVF issue demands walking an odd political tightrope. On the one hand, the administration is outwardly embracing right-wing pronatalist speak. Take Trump’s remarks from the Oval Office: “The initiatives I’ve just announced are the boldest and most significant actions ever taken by any president to bring the miracle of life into more American homes. There’s no deeper happiness and joy of raising children.” Mehmet Oz, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, added, “Now I know what you’re all thinking, and you’re probably right, that there are going to be a lot of Trump babies.”

On the other hand, many in the anti-abortion movement oppose IVF altogether, Trump babies and all. Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life, posted on X, “I’m thankful there’s no new healthcare mandate forcing coverage for the destructive IVF industry, but IVF, as it’s practiced, still destroys countless humans in the embryonic stage.” Hawkins added it is “the second disappointment in two weeks from his team,” referring to the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of a generic version of mifepristone (also covered at The Contrarian this month).

Meanwhile, the Heritage Foundation, which advocates restorative reproductive medicine, a made-up term for “holistic” solutions to infertility—all of which are baked into Project 2025—issued a statement claiming its own interpretation of victory, equating Trump’s toothless announcement for IVF a win for a MAHA-vision of care.

In the end, it marks yet another losing proposition for all Americans at a time when access to health care is at grave risk.

Jennifer Weiss-Wolf is executive director of the Birnbaum Women’s Leadership Center at NYU School of Law. She also leads strategy and partnerships at Ms. Magazine.

---