The Trump administration is drafting a plan that could allow some married couples to collect federal child care subsidies when one parent stays home with their children.
The proposed rule would apply within existing income limits when one spouse works at least 35 hours a week and the other provides care at home, according to The New York Times, which reviewed a draft and spoke with people familiar with the discussions. Unmarried couples with a stay-at-home parent would not qualify under the version described.
The money would come from the existing Child Care and Development Fund. CCDF currently helps low- and moderate-income families afford child care while parents work, attend school or complete job training, usually through vouchers or payments to eligible providers.
The draft still requires White House approval and could be revised or abandoned before HHS opens a public-comment period.
The Draft Requires One Spouse to Work at Least 35 Hours
Breaking News: A Trump administration plan would direct child-care funds to married stay-at-home parents, people familiar with the plan say. https://t.co/BuG178XKbb
— The New York Times (@nytimes) September 5, 2026
The draft would create what it calls “parent-based child care.” A married household meeting the income requirements could qualify when one spouse works at least 35 hours per week and the other stays home to care for the couple’s child.
The proposal would be a significant departure from current policy because it would explicitly allow a parent to receive CCDF assistance for caring for their own child. Existing federal rules already allow several forms of care beyond commercial day care, including in-home providers and certain relatives, but the definition of eligible relative providers does not include a child’s own parent.
Single parents who do not work would also remain ineligible, while single parents who work, attend school or participate in job training could continue qualifying under existing rules. The Times reported that some HHS lawyers involved in the process have questioned whether limiting the new category to married couples would survive a legal challenge.
The Widely Reported $9,000 Figure Is Not a Guaranteed Payment
The Child Care and Development Fund typically provides assistance worth about $9,000 per child annually, according to the Times. That number has appeared prominently in coverage of the draft, but it does not mean every qualifying stay-at-home parent would automatically receive a $9,000 check.
CCDF is a roughly $12 billion federal-state program that currently helps pay for care for about 1.3 million children. Federal law generally caps eligibility at 85 percent of a state’s median income for a family of the same size, although states can impose lower income thresholds and make other decisions about how assistance is distributed.
Current assistance is usually delivered through child care certificates, vouchers or payments tied to eligible providers. Federal regulations recognize center-based, family, relative and in-home care, while states and territories administer the program within federal requirements. The new draft would have to establish how assistance for a parent caring for their own child would actually be calculated, documented and paid.
Existing Recipients Would Be Drawing From the Same Funding Pool
The Times reported that about 80 percent of the roughly 870,000 families now receiving the subsidies are headed by single working parents, most of them mothers. That has fueled concern that expanding eligibility could reduce assistance available to households already relying on the program.
Patrick T. Brown, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center’s Life and Family Initiative, told the Times that he supports greater assistance for stay-at-home parents but questioned using the existing CCDF pool. He warned that expanding eligibility without additional funding could leave working families, particularly single parents, competing for scarcer assistance.
The National Women’s Law Center also opposed the draft, arguing that CCDF already reaches only about one in seven eligible children and that adding another class of recipients without new appropriations could further strain families and providers already waiting for assistance.
JD Vance Has Long Pushed for More Support for Care at Home
“Universal child care” is a massive subsidy to the lifestyle preferences of the affluent over the preferences of the middle and working class. pic.twitter.com/SwzolxORFf
— JD Vance (@JDVance) April 29, 2021
Vice President JD Vance has championed the proposed change, according to the Times, following years of arguing that family policy should not favor commercial day care over parents or relatives who provide care at home.
In 2021, Vance criticized proposals centered on universal day care and argued that government policy should give families more freedom to choose parental care. He later called for child care subsidy programs to recognize what he described as “kinship care.”
The administration had already signaled that direction before the current draft surfaced. In May, the White House announced child care initiatives that it said would expand provider choice and better empower stay-at-home parents, while Administration for Children and Families chief Alex Adams urged governors to use existing flexibility to support married two-parent families and households in which a parent remains home with young children.
Supporters argue that the policy would put parental caregiving on more equal footing with paid child care. Roger Severino of the Heritage Foundation, who wrote the child care section of Project 2025, told the Times that paying stay-at-home parents would correct what he views as unequal treatment between parental care and commercial day care.
The Administration Says the Change Could Proceed Without Congress
People familiar with the drafting process told the Times that officials believe the change could be made through regulation without separate approval from Congress.
If the White House approves the proposal, HHS would publish it and open a period for public comment before deciding whether to issue a final rule. The Times reported that a finalized version could take effect as early as 2027. No proposal had appeared in the Federal Register and the draft remains an administration plan.