Donald Trump’s IVF Executive Order, Explained

On February 18, Donald Trump signed an IVF executive order, theoretically to make good on his campaign promise to somehow make IVF free for everyone. But you have good reason to be skeptical. When we take a closer look, it seems clear that the executive order cannot meaningfully expand IVF access and is a far cry from a directive for the government to cover all IVF costs.

Democratic senator Tammy Duckworth said in a statement, “Don’t be fooled. Donald Trump’s executive order does nothing to expand access to IVF. In fact, he’s the reason IVF is at risk in the first place.” Duckworth has a bill, called the Right to IVF Act, which is still being blocked by Republicans in the Senate. Duckworth’s statement continued, “But if he is actually serious about taking real action to accomplish his own campaign promise to make IVF free for everyone, there’s a simple way he can prove it: He can call on Senate Republicans to immediately back my Right to IVF Act that would require insurance plans to cover IVF.”

Here’s what to know about Trump’s IVF executive order:

First, what is IVF?

IVF (in vitro fertilization) is a common and effective treatment for infertility, but the process is complex. IVF begins with the retrieval of mature eggs from the ovaries, which are then fertilized by sperm in a lab. If those fertilized eggs mature into embryos suitable for transfer, the embryos can be transferred into a uterus or frozen for future use.

What does Trump’s IVF executive order say?

“It is the policy of my Administration to ensure reliable access to IVF treatment, including by easing unnecessary statutory or regulatory burdens to make IVF treatment drastically more affordable,” the order states. To that end, Trump’s executive order gives the assistant to the president for domestic policy 90 days to submit a list of “policy recommendations on protecting IVF access and aggressively reducing out-of-pocket and health plan costs for IVF treatment,” per CNN.

What will it actually do?

Functionally nothing. The order only demands a list of “policy recommendations,” but does not require any such recommendations actually be followed.

Will it protect IVF from legal challenges like the 2024 Alabama Supreme Court ruling?

In 2024, the Alabama Supreme Court found that frozen embryos—such as those created through IVF—were legally considered children. Because frozen embryos are often destroyed in a normal course of IVF, this put all IVF providers at legal risk of wrongful death suits and other legal challenges simply for doing their jobs. This sparked concern that similar legal findings could endanger IVF in other states across the country.

Additionally, one of Trump’s earlier executive orders, declaring that there are only two genders and they are decided “at conception,” was read by many as quietly affirming the antiabortion idea of fetal personhood, which could further endanger IVF.

What has Trump said about IVF in the past?

After the reaction to the Alabama ruling, Trump began campaigning on expanding access to the procedure, which he frequently referred to simply as “fertilization.” At one point he even referred to himself as the “father of IVF,” per CNN. (Obviously, he is not.)

What are reproductive rights organizations saying?

In a statement to Glamour, Lauren Peterson, co-founder of Abortion in America, called out the seeming double standard of women’s reproductive care. “As a parent who has gratefully turned to IVF to grow our family, and as someone who spends every day surrounded by stories of people denied essential reproductive health care, I hope this administration will take the time time to listen to the experiences of patients and health care providers across our country who can speak to the very real threat abortion bans pose to fertility care and maternal health,” she writes. “You cannot meaningfully expand access to IVF while attacking access to abortion.”