By Tyler Arnold
Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Aug 5, 2025 /
06:00 am
President Donald Trump’s administration may be walking back an earlier plan that would have required insurance companies to provide coverage for in vitro fertilization (IVF), according to a report from the Washington Post.
The Post reported that “two people with knowledge of internal discussions” told the outlet that the White House does not plan to impose any IVF mandates on health insurance providers.
According to the report, a senior administration official said expanding IVF access is still “a huge priority” for the president but that any government-imposed mandatory coverage would need to come from legislation passed through Congress. The article reported that such a plan is not on the table at the moment.
CNA reached out to the White House for a response to that report and to ask whether religious liberty concerns for Catholics and others opposed to IVF are being weighed in the deliberations but did not get a response by the time of publication.
The Catholic Church opposes IVF because it separates the creation of life from the marital act and because the process results in the destruction of millions of human embryos, which ends human lives. The Southern Baptist Convention officially expressed opposition to IVF last year as well, but many Protestant denominations do not take a formal stance.
Trump first promised nearly a year ago during a campaign rally that the government would either subsidize IVF costs with taxpayer money or impose a coverage mandate on insurers. In October, Trump told EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo that a religious exemption for those opposed to IVF “sounds to me like a pretty good idea” and that “we will look at that.”
As president in February, Trump signed an executive order directing the United States Domestic Policy Council to examine ways to expand IVF access, which sparked immediate concerns from the pro-life community and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). At this point, the administration has not imposed any rules related to IVF coverage.
Father Thomas Ferguson, who serves on the religious leadership advisory board for Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission, told CNA the report suggesting a departure from an insurance coverage mandate is “welcome news” but that Catholics “must continue to remain vigilant” in opposition to IVF.
IVF, Ferguson said, is “an illicit medical procedure” and must not be portrayed as an “essential health benefit.”
“It is a matter of grave concern that there might exist the possibility that tax dollars would be used to pay for IVF procedures under federally funded insurance plans,” Ferguson said.
“An even more serious concern would be the prospect of the federal government attempting to mandate privately funded insurance plans to pay for IVF services in a manner that would be clearly contrary to the religious beliefs of individuals, business owners, or even churches themselves,” he added.
The Religious Liberty Commission has held one hearing so far, but concerns about potential IVF expansion were not on the agenda. Ferguson said that education will be the focus of the second hearing scheduled for Sept. 8. No other topics have been scheduled yet, but he said he expects Catholic leaders to raise the IVF issue within the context of the commission’s work.
“Catholic belief and teaching that IVF is a morally illicit means of conceiving human life is well known, so it should be no surprise that Catholic leaders and the Catholic faithful would be dismayed by the administration’s commitment to promote IVF as a part of its policy on marriage and family life,” Ferguson added.
Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, a senior ethicist at the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC), expressed optimism about the report, telling CNA that Trump’s advisers “thankfully seem to have gotten his ear and reminded him that the government ought not be subsidizing IVF in any manner.”
IVF, he said, is “an unethical approach to satisfying parental desires and customer yearnings by erecting and subsidizing an enormous industry to replace what parents themselves are meant to do uniquely within the marital embrace. Human life is not respected in the process but is instead commodified and objectified.”
Rather than covering IVF, Pacholczyk said health insurance should cover “authentic therapies and treatments for infertility,” such as natural procreative technology and Fertility Education and Medical Management, which are pro-life alternatives that seek to address the root causes of fertility struggles.
(Story continues below)
Subscribe to our daily newsletter
NCBC past president and senior fellow Joseph Meaney told CNA the report is “highly welcome news” and noted that IVF is “extremely unethical and costly,” while the many pro-life alternatives are “ethically and financially” preferable.
He said the Church has consistently condemned IVF as immoral since 1987 in the document Donum Vitae and that the First Amendment would require that any potential insurance mandate have religious liberty exemptions.
“Religious freedom constitutional guarantees in the U.S. would make it illegal to impose IVF on Catholics and particularly on Catholic employers who might have been required to pay for IVF through their employee health insurance plans,” Meaney added.
Tyler Arnold is a staff reporter for Catholic News Agency, based in EWTN News’ Washington Bureau. He previously worked at The Center Square and has been published in a variety of outlets, including The Associated Press, National Review, The American Conservative, and The Federalist.
