4 minPolitics
Pence Group Opposes Vance Plan to Pay Stay-at-Home Parents Up to $9,000 per Child
Advancing American Freedom, founded by former Vice President Mike Pence, is urging conservatives to reject a proposal backed by Vice President JD Vance that would expand the Child Care and Development Fund to pay stay-at-home parents up to $9,000 per child annually, warning it would invite government intrusion, punish work, and create fraud risks.
A conservative advocacy group founded by former Vice President Mike Pence is urging Republicans to oppose a proposal backed by Vice President JD Vance that would allow stay-at-home parents to receive up to $9,000 per child annually through an expansion of the federal Child Care and Development Fund.
In a one-page document, Advancing American Freedom argued that the plan would "expose the sanctity of the family to government intrusion, punish work, and create new avenues for fraud." The group's president, Tim Chapman, said Vance is right to focus on the family but warned that this particular approach would do more harm than good.
"Parenting is the most difficult job in the world," Chapman said. "Unfortunately, as sympathetic groups around the movement have noted, this particular proposal would do more harm than good, opening up the family to government audits, benefit cliffs, dependency and new disincentives to work."
The Child Care and Development Fund was created during the Clinton administration to help low-income and working-class families pay for childcare. It currently provides about $9,000 per child annually, with funds typically paid directly to childcare providers. Roughly 870,000 families receive the benefit, and 80 percent of them are single parents, predominantly mothers, according to AAF.
Under Vance's draft plan, families with a stay-at-home parent earning below state income limits could receive up to $9,000 per child annually. To qualify, a married couple must have one spouse who stays at home while the other works at least 35 hours a week. Unmarried couples and non-working single parents would not be eligible.
AAF warned that expanding eligibility to stay-at-home parents could create more competition for already limited resources. The group noted that the CCDF is already stretched thin, with nearly one-third of states having waitlists. It also said the plan would require an auditable "childcare service" and could open the door to fraud if not properly monitored.
John Shelton, AAF's vice president of policy, said the group generally supports creative proposals aimed at helping families but argued the execution falls short. "I give the administration an A for effort, but a C or a D for implementation of what we've seen so far," he said.
Shelton added that stay-at-home spouses would be penalized for taking on remote, part-time or gig work, and families could take a financial hit for receiving a raise or promotion. "What should be this opportunity for celebration and excitement could actually end up being this huge setback where you get a $1,000, $5,000 bonus, and suddenly you lose out on access to north of $10,000 depending on how many kids you have," he said. "That's a disincentive to work to kind of grow and get promoted. That is not the kind of conservative ideal for how these programs should work."
Supporters of the proposal argue that stay-at-home parents should receive financial support on par with families that use subsidized childcare services. Roger Severino, vice president of the Heritage Foundation, wrote on X that parents who hand their kids to commercial day care get subsidy payments while parents who raise their kids at home currently get nothing. "It's illogical and unjust and this proposal would level the playing field," he wrote.
The debate comes as conservatives continue to discuss the future of family policy and the role of government in supporting parents. AAF said it looks forward to continued debate on the issue. Fox News Digital reached out to the White House and Vance's office for comment.
