Trump never actually cared about making IVF affordable. He just wanted your vote.
Turns out the 'father of IVF' isn't going to live up to the promise he made on the reelection campaign trail. Who could have seen that coming?
After campaigning on the promise that the government would pay for in vitro fertilization or require insurers to cover it, The Washington Post reports that President Donald Trump has no actual plan to make the procedure more affordable. There are no talks of federal subsidies or Affordable Care Act coverage, and administration officials say that there is no plan to get insurance companies on board.
When asked about this by The Post, the White House issued a statement saying, "The Administration is committed like none before it to using its authorities to deliver on this pledge" to make IVF more accessible in the United States.
Of course, there's a difference between saying you're committed to doing something and actually doing it.
I'm not shocked that Trump made a promise he has failed to keep – after all, this is the same man who said he was going to make the cost of living go down and stop the wars in Gaza and Ukraine. Unfortunately, this is just another instance of his administration failing to prioritize reproductive rights.
Let's look at what Trump said about IVF during the campaign
On the campaign trail, Trump was all-in on IVF, making the claim in August 2024 that the government or insurance companies would pay for the treatment.
'We want to produce babies in this country, right?' Trump said at the time.
In February, the president signed an executive order giving domestic policy advisers 90 days to brainstorm ways to lower the cost of IVF and other fertilization treatments. The deadline came and went without any public progress, and the administration recently declined to comment on it.
Opinion: Planned Parenthood isn't the only loser in Supreme Court case. Women lose, too.
IVF is an incredibly cost-prohibitive procedure that accounts for about 2% of births annually. The nonprofit organization KFF reports that the cost of a single round of IVF can range between $9,000 and $14,000.
In the executive order, Trump claimed the costs could get up to $25,000.
It's no surprise that an administration determined to pinch pennies is backing away from a plan that would cost them a lot of money, nor is it surprising that Trump would come to realize that forcing the insurance industry to do anything would hurt his chances at future donations.
More than anything, it's unsurprising that Trump would go back on a promise that, while controversial in right-wing circles, would benefit families who want to have children.
IVF isn't the only reproductive rights challenge we face
The fight for IVF is closely linked to the fight for reproductive freedom and abortion access. It comes down to whether women can make decisions about their bodies and their ability to start a family, regardless of the beliefs of others.
Opinion: Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.
In February 2024, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos were considered human beings, leading IVF clinics in the state to pause services out of fear. The legislature quickly introduced a bill that protected patients from potential legal issues, but it didn't address embryonic personhood.
The entire situation revealed how complex the legal landscape could become after the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision overturning Roe v. Wade, to the point that it could even harm people who are actively trying to conceive.
Not financially supporting IVF comes at a time when women have lost the right to choose when and how they are going to start a family:
The government is making it clear that women are subject to the whims of politicians, rather than being able to make decisions about their own bodies. Trump officials never actually cared about making IVF affordable, just like they don't actually care about improving the conditions for people who want to start families but can't afford to. It was all so that Trump could get reelected.
Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
18 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
European leaders rally behind Ukraine ahead of Trump-Putin meeting
KYIV, Ukraine — European nations have rallied behind Ukraine, saying peace in the war-torn nation can't be resolved without Kyiv, ahead of a planned meeting this week between President Trump and Russia's Vladimir Putin. Trump had said Friday's meeting in Alaska with his Russian counterpart was to discuss ending the more than three-year war. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky responded by thanking European allies and wrote on X on Sunday: 'The end of the war must be fair, and I am grateful to everyone who stands with Ukraine and our people.' Saturday's statement by top European leaders came after the White House confirmed the U.S president was willing to grant Putin the one-on-one meeting Russia has long pushed for, and suggestions from Trump that a peace deal could include 'some swapping of territories.' That raised fears that Ukraine may be pressured into giving up land or accepting other curbs on its sovereignty. A White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity as they aren't allowed to speak publicly, told the Associated Press that Trump remained open to a trilateral summit with both the Russian and Ukrainian leaders, but for now he will have the bilateral meeting requested by Putin. Trump had earlier said he would meet with Putin even if the Russian leader would not meet with Zelensky. On Saturday, U.S. Vice President JD Vance met with top European and Ukrainian officials at the British Foreign Secretary's weekend residence to discuss how to end the war. The Trump-Putin meeting could prove pivotal in a war that began when Russia invaded its smaller neighbor in 2022 and has led to tens of thousands of deaths, although Moscow and Kyiv remain far apart on their conditions for peace. Saturday's statement, signed by the president of the European Union and leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Finland and the U.K., stressed the need for a 'just and lasting peace' for Ukraine, including 'robust and credible' security guarantees. 'Ukraine has the freedom of choice over its own destiny. Meaningful negotiations can only take place in the context of a ceasefire or reduction of hostilities,' the statement said. 'The path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine. We remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force,' the Europeans added. A monthlong U.S.-led push to achieve a truce in Ukraine has so far proved fruitless, with Kyiv agreeing in principle while the Kremlin has held out for terms more to its liking. Trump had also moved up an ultimatum to impose additional sanctions on Russia and introduce secondary tariffs targeting countries that buy Russian oil if Moscow did not move toward a settlement. The deadline was Friday. The White House did not answer questions Saturday about possible sanctions. Russia last week reiterated demands that Ukraine give up territory, abandon its bid to join NATO and accept limits on its military in exchange for a withdrawal of Russian troops from the rest of the country. Particularly galling for Kyiv is Moscow's insistence that it cede pockets of eastern and southern Ukraine the Kremlin claims to have annexed, despite lacking full military control. Mark Galeotti, an expert in Russian politics who heads the Mayak Intelligence consultancy in the United Kingdom, says Moscow's tactic of encircling towns in eastern Ukraine has brought a string of territorial gains for Russia, and Putin 'seems to feel he is still winning.' 'Putin does not appear to feel under pressure,' Galeotti argued in an analysis published Sunday by Britain's Sunday Times newspaper. He said that for Putin, 'further delaying any more serious U.S. action and the optics of a meeting with the U.S. president will already be wins.' Zelensky said Saturday that Ukraine 'will not give Russia any awards for what it has done' and that 'Ukrainians will not give their land to the occupier.' Ukrainian officials previously told the AP privately that Kyiv would be amenable to a peace deal that would de facto recognize Ukraine's inability to regain lost territories militarily. But Zelensky on Saturday insisted that formally ceding land was out of the question. Galeotti argued that any deal that involves Ukraine abandoning territory would be 'agonizing' and politically dangerous for Zelensky. Andriy Yermak, a top aide to Zelensky, noted on Sunday that Kyiv will strive to boost its position ahead of the planned Trump-Putin meeting. 'Ahead lies an important week of diplomacy,' he said. Kullab writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Michelle L. Price in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.
New York Post
18 minutes ago
- New York Post
Goodbye to DEI, crushed by the weight of its own hypocrisies
President Donald Trump's executive orders banning diversity, equity and inclusion-related racial and gender preferencing have ostensibly doomed the DEI industry. But DEI was already on its last legs. Half of all Americans no longer approve of racial, ethnic or gender preferences. Advertisement DEI had enjoyed a surge following the death of George Floyd and the subsequent 120 days of nonstop rioting, arson, assaults, killings and attacks on law enforcement during the summer of 2020. In those chaotic years, DEI was seen as the answer to racial tensions. DEI had insidiously replaced the old notion of affirmative action — a 1960s-era government remedy for historical prejudices against black Americans, from the legacy of slavery to Jim Crow segregation. But during the Obama era, 'diversity' superseded affirmative action by offering preferences to many groups well beyond black Americans. Advertisement Quite abruptly, Americans began talking in Marxist binaries. On one side were the supposed 65 to 70% white majority 'oppressors' and 'victimizers' — often stereotyped as exuding 'white privilege,' 'white supremacy' or even 'white rage.' They were juxtaposed to the 30 to 35% of 'diverse' Americans, the so-called 'oppressed' and 'victimized.' Advertisement Yet almost immediately, contradictions and hypocrisies undermined DEI. First, how does one define 'diverse' in an increasingly multiracial, intermarried, assimilated and integrated society? DNA badges? The old one-drop rule of the antebellum South? Superficial appearance? To establish racial or ethnic proof of being one-sixteenth, one-fourth, or one-half 'non-white,' employers, corporations and universities would have to become racially obsessed genealogists. Advertisement Yet refusing to become racial auditors also would allow racial and ethnic fraudsters — like Sen. Elizabeth Warren and the would-be mayor of New York, Zohran Mamdani — to go unchecked. Warren falsely claimed Native American heritage to leverage a Harvard professorship. Mamdani, an immigrant son of wealthy Indian immigrants from Uganda, tried to game his way into college by claiming he was African American. Second, in 21st-century America, class became increasingly divergent from race. Mamdani, who promises to tax 'affluent' and 'whiter' neighborhoods at higher rates, is himself the child of Indian immigrants, the most affluent ethnic group in America. Why would the children of Barack Obama, Joy Reid or LeBron James need any special preferences, given the multimillionaire status of their parents? In other words, one's superficial appearance no longer necessarily determines one's income or wealth, nor defines 'privilege' or lack thereof. Third, DEI is often tied to questions of 'reparations.' The current white majority supposedly owes other particular groups financial or entitlement compensation for the sins of the past. Advertisement Yet in today's multiracial and multiethnic society, in which over 50 million residents were not born in the United States and many have only recently arrived, what are the particular historical or past grievances that would earn anyone special treatment? What injustices can recent arrivals from southern Mexico, South Korea or Chad claim, knowing little about, and experiencing no firsthand bias from, Americans, the United States, or its history? Is the DEI logic that when a Guatemalan steps one foot across the southern border, she is suddenly classified as a victim of white oppression and therefore entitled to preferences in hiring or employment? Fourth, does the word 'minority' still carry any currency? Advertisement In today's California, the demography breaks down as 40% Latino, 34% white, 16% Asian American or Pacific Islander, 6% black, and 3% Other — with no significant majority and fewer whites than the Latino 'minority.' Are Latinos the new de facto 'majority' and 'whites' just one of the four other 'minorities?' Do the other minorities, then, have grievances against Latinos, given that they are the dominant population in the state? Fifth, when does DEI 'proportional representation' apply, and when does it not? Are whites 'overrepresented' among the nation's university faculties, reportedly 75% white, when they comprise only about 70% of the population? Advertisement Or, are whites 'underrepresented' as college students, making up just 55% of them, and thus in need of DEI action to bump up their numbers? Black athletes are vastly overrepresented in lucrative and prestigious professional sports. To correct such asymmetries, should Asians and Hispanics be given mandated quotas for quarterback or point-guard positions to ensure proper athletic 'diversity, equity and inclusion'? Sixth, DEI determines good and bad prejudices, as well as correct and incorrect biases. 'Affinity' segregationist graduations — black, Hispanic, Asian and gay — are considered 'affirming'. Advertisement But would a similar affinity graduation ceremony for European-Americans or Jews be considered 'racist'? Is a Latino-themed, de facto segregated house on a California campus considered 'enlightened,' while a European-American dorm would be condemned as incendiary? In truth, DEI long ago became corrupt, falling apart under the weight of its own paradoxes and hypocrisies. It is a perniciously divisive idea — unable to define who qualifies for preference or why, who is overrepresented or not, or when bias is acceptable or unjust. And it is past time that it goes away. Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness.
Newsweek
19 minutes ago
- Newsweek
What Russia and Ukraine Are Demanding Ahead of Putin-Trump Alaska Meeting
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. With President Donald Trump's face-to-face meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin looming, there are still unanswered questions about how Ukraine will be involved, and whether the Republican can find a way to bridge the still-substantial distance between Kyiv and Moscow on a ceasefire deal. Trump said he would meet Putin in Alaska on August 15 for a "highly anticipated" summit. It will be the first time the Republican has met the Kremlin chief in person of his second term in office. Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov confirmed the meeting, saying on Saturday that the White House and the Kremlin would be "working vigorously hard" on the summit's agenda in the next few days. "The presidents will undoubtedly focus on discussing ways to reach a sustainable settlement to the Ukraine crisis," Ushakov said. The Trump administration is considering inviting Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky, U.S. media reported on Saturday. Many months of talks on a ceasefire deal for Ukraine have failed to yield an agreement inked by both Kyiv and Moscow. Ukraine agreed to a U.S. proposal in March, and Trump—historically reluctant to overly criticize Putin—has grown increasingly frustrated with the Kremlin chief. U.S. President Donald Trump, right, meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G20 Summit in Hamburg, Germany, on July 7, 2017. U.S. President Donald Trump, right, meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G20 Summit in Hamburg, Germany, on July 7, 2017. AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File What Does Trump Want? Trump, often known for to-and-froing, has been consistent in his calls for an end to the largest conflict on European soil since World War II. A substantial part of his foreign policy has been shaped by his desire to be known as both a dealmaker and a peacemaker. As Moscow increased its aerial assaults on Ukraine in recent months, Trump became more critical of the Kremlin, saying Putin was giving the White House "a lot of b*******." Trump has warmed to Ukraine since the infamous White House meeting with Zelensky in February, during which the president, along with several senior administration officials, berated the Kyiv leader in front of the world's cameras. But as Russia's reluctance to sign a deal continued, Trump greenlet more aid for Ukraine, including air defense supplies to defend the country from Russian attacks, and imposed a deadline of "10 or 12 days" for Russia to agree to a ceasefire deal in early August. This window closed on Friday, but the White House did not appear to institute new economic sanctions on Russia as threatened. "Putin is not interested in a true ceasefire," said Oleksandr Merezhko, the chair of Ukraine's parliamentary foreign affairs committee and a member of Zelensky's party. "He is using negotiations with Trump for only one purpose—to avoid serious sanctions, including secondary sanctions against those countries which buy Russian oil and gas," he told Newsweek. Russia's oil and gas industry is crucial to the country's economy, and Moscow was slapped with sanctions by Ukraine's backers after it launched its full-scale invasion of its neighbor in early 2022. Kyiv has also targeted Russian oil and gas facilities with long-range drone strikes in an attempt to curb the Kremlin's access to the resources propping up its military. Secondary sanctions target third-party buyers of Russian exports, like India and China. Trump became embroiled in a war of words with Russia's former President, Dmitry Medvedev, and deployed two U.S. Navy nuclear submarines after "highly provocative" statements from Medvedev. The former president is currently the deputy chair of Russia's Security Council and well-known for his inflammatory social media commentary. Where Does Ukraine stand? Ukrainian officials frequently say they are seeking an end to the war, but one that does not reward Russia or open the door for Moscow to restart attempts to seize territory from Kyiv. Ukraine has repeatedly said that ceding Ukrainian territory to Russia is off the table. It goes against the country's constitution, Zelensky said again over the weekend. "No one will deviate from this—and no one will be able to," Zelensky said in a post to messaging app Telegram on Saturday. "Ukrainians will not gift their land to the occupier." Ukraine has consistently said it needs security guarantees, and not to be bound by any limits on the size of its military. Kyiv also does not want to be labeled a neutral state, but one firmly on the path to NATO and European Union membership. Ukraine's memorandum, presented by Kyiv officials during rounds of direct talks with a Russian delegation in Turkey earlier this summer, also said it sought a "full and unconditional ceasefire in the sky, on land and at sea." Furthermore, Kyiv has said an agreement needs to look at humanitarian issues, such as an exchange of all prisoners and the return of children taken from Russian-controlled areas of Ukraine. And Russia's Perspective? Russia's demands have remained far away from what Ukraine appears willing to accept. During direct talks in Istanbul in June, Russia offered up two proposals for a 30-day ceasefire. "The first one is about how to reach a truly lasting peace," Vladimir Medinsky, Russia's chief negotiator, said at the time. "The second part highlights the steps to be taken toward a real ceasefire." One option would have Kyiv withdraw from the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, collectively known as the Donbas, as well as the southern Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions of Ukraine. Russia declared it had annexed these four mainland Ukrainian regions in fall 2022. It does not fully control these regions, although it has captured much of Luhansk and Donetsk. Moscow annexed Crimea, to the south of the mainland, from Kyiv in 2014. The alternative, Russia said, would be for Ukraine to stop building up its military and halt military aid deliveries, while lifting martial law and opening up to elections. Elections are banned in Ukraine while martial law is in place. A more comprehensive peace agreement would come later, Moscow said, adding no foreign military personnel should be allowed in Ukraine. Russia has pushed for the recognition of its control over the annexed regions, and for Ukraine to abandon its hopes of joining NATO in favor of neutrality. Moscow has also said it wants Kyiv to limit the size of its military and put the Russian language on equal footing with Ukrainian. How Does Europe Fit In? The U.K., France, Italy, Germany, Poland, Finland, and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen issued a joint statement on Sunday, reiterating their support for the "principle that international borders must not be changed by force." "We share the conviction that a diplomatic solution must protect Ukraine's and Europe's vital security interests," the governments said. European leaders have offered a "counterproposal" following a meeting between Putin and Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, The Wall Street Journal reported. This European plan rejected the idea Ukraine would cede territory it still holds in Donetsk and was presented to the U.S. on Saturday, according to the report.
