EXCLUSIVE: Pence group knocks Vance plan to pay stay-at-home parents up to $9K per child

Conservative Groups Divided Over Vance Proposal to Subsidize Stay-at-Home Parents

A high-profile conservative policy initiative backed by Vice President JD Vance would provide stay-at-home parents with up to $9,000 per child each year — but the plan has already drawn sharp criticism from within the broader conservative movement, raising questions about how the Republican-led government approaches family policy going forward.

The proposal seeks to expand the Child Care and Development Fund, a program originally established during the Clinton administration to assist low-income and working-class families with childcare expenses. Under Vance's draft plan, married couples in which one spouse stays home while the other works at least 35 hours a week could qualify for the annual subsidy. However, unmarried couples and single parents who are not employed would be excluded from the program. Families meeting the criteria would receive up to $9,000 per child, the same amount currently available to families that use subsidized childcare providers.

Advancing American Freedom, a conservative organization founded by former Vice President Mike Pence, has emerged as one of the plan's most vocal critics. In a formal statement, the group urged conservatives to oppose the expansion, warning that it would "expose the sanctity of the family to government intrusion, punish work, and create new avenues for fraud."

Tim Chapman, president of AAF, acknowledged the intent behind the proposal while cautioning that its effects could be counterproductive. "Parenting is the most difficult job in the world. Vice President Vance is right to focus on the family," 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."

At the heart of AAF's concerns is the idea that tying financial support to family structure could create penalties for working. John Shelton, the group's vice president of policy, said the details of the plan matter more than the headline goal. "We generally like these kinds of different creative proposals. There's no job that's more difficult than raising kids," Shelton said. "And so that's a laudable thing, but the devil's in the details."

Shelton pointed to what he described as benefit cliffs — situations in which a family's total financial picture worsens after earning a raise or promotion. Under the proposal, a family receiving a $1,000 or $5,000 bonus at work could lose access to more than $10,000 in combined benefits, Shelton argued, calling that a disincentive to professional growth that runs contrary to conservative principles.

"Welfare's goal is to get people into work and off of welfare," AAF stated. "This proposal would do the opposite."

The group also raised concerns about fraud and accountability. Under Vance's plan, families would need to document a verifiable "childcare service," which Shelton said could open the door to abuse if federal oversight is insufficient. AAF cited a recent federal raid on nine daycare centers in Minnesota tied to a $1.1 million taxpayer-funded investigation as evidence that subsidy programs can be vulnerable to misuse.

AAF noted that approximately 870,000 families currently receive CCDF benefits, with roughly 80 percent of those households led by single parents, predominantly mothers. Expanding eligibility to stay-at-home parents, the group warned, could intensify competition for already scarce resources. According to AAF, nearly one-third of states currently maintain waitlists for the program.

Not everyone agrees with AAF's assessment. Roger Severino, vice president of the Heritage Foundation, defended the proposal on social media, arguing that stay-at-home parents deserve financial recognition equal to what families using commercial daycare services receive. "Parents who hand their kids to commercial day care get subsidy payments, while parents who bear the toil, expense, and opportunity cost of raising their kids at home currently get ZERO," Severino wrote. "It's illogical and unjust and this proposal would level the playing field."

Severino and others have pointed out that the current system effectively rewards families that outsource childcare while offering nothing to those who choose to care for their children at home, calling the imbalance both unfair and inconsistent with conservative values.

Shelson, however, struck a measured tone when evaluating the broader effort. While praising the administration's ambition, he suggested the execution needs significant improvement. "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.

The debate underscores a broader ideological tension within the conservative movement over the role of government in supporting families. Some lawmakers and policy advocates believe that financial recognition for stay-at-home parenting is a necessary and long-overdue correction, while others fear that any government-administered benefit risks bureaucratizing private family decisions and discouraging workforce participation.

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House and Vice President Vance's office for comment on the proposal's status and any planned revisions, but received no response at the time of publication. With the policy still in its draft stage, the conversation around family subsidies is expected to continue as lawmakers and advocacy groups on both sides weigh in.