The day before Donald Trump’s inauguration, ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio wrote that the administration’s executive orders would be “glorified press releases” that won’t change the law, but will aim to create confusion and chaos among people who are already scared. That prediction has largely proved true, as seen in Trump’s EOs purporting to end birthright citizenship, ban medical care for transgender youth, and claw back government funding.
There’s another kind of executive action, though, which also leaves the law unchanged, but seeks to create the illusion of an accomplishment that’s popular with the electorate. In that bucket we can file Trump’s executive order on in vitro fertilization.
If there’s one industry that doesn’t need Silicon Valley’s mentality of “move fast and break things,” it’s the one that creates and stores embryos.
The order, signed on Tuesday, says that a domestic policy aide has 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.” In short, Trump is asking for concepts of a plan to be delivered at a later date. As USA Today explained: “The order signed Tuesday has no immediate impact on the cost of IVF or expanding access to reproductive treatments.” Still, that didn’t stop White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt from declaring on X — in all caps, no less — that it was an example of “promises made, promises kept.”
Access to IVF became a tangible issue during the presidential campaign when, in February 2024, the Alabama state Supreme Court ruled that IVF embryos are considered children for purposes of wrongful death lawsuits. Without the protections of Roe v. Wade, states can define life as beginning at fertilization, which could limit access to fertility treatments in addition to banning abortion.
Trump, who repeatedly bragged about his role in getting the Supreme Court to overturn Roe, scrambled to seem supportive of IVF after the Alabama ruling. In August, he even claimed that if he won, not only would he protect IVF, but that the expensive treatments would be paid for by the government or insurance companies. “We are going to be, under the Trump administration, we are going to be paying for that treatment,” Trump told NBC News in August, adding, “We’re going to be mandating that the insurance company pay.”
Trump doubled down on the proposal at a Michigan event a day later, and blurted out one reason for it: “Because we want more babies, to put it nicely.” While the promised mandate did not survive to this year, the motivation did: A fact sheet accompanying the order mentions the country’s declining birthrate.
The order also says it’s the administration’s policy to increase access by “easing unnecessary statutory or regulatory burdens to make IVF treatment drastically more affordable.” But deregulation would be “misguided,” as Georgetown University Law Center professor Susan Crockin told The Cut. “Current regulation of standard-of-care IVF treatments and laboratories help make IVF both more effective and safer for patients and the families they hope to create; removing them could undermine those important safeguards,” she said. If there’s one industry that doesn’t need Silicon Valley’s mentality of “move fast and break things,” it’s the one that creates and stores embryos.
The order got largely positive or neutral coverage from most media outlets, and that may have been the point.
If Trump actually wanted to “make IVF treatment drastically more affordable,” he wouldn’t need to order aides to study anything. He could ask Congress to pass a bill that either further entrenches the Affordable Care Act by requiring insurance coverage of IVF, or massively increases the federal budget to pay for IVF treatments.
Or Trump could simply endorse the existing Right to IVF Act from Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill. Her bill would create a right to access fertility services, including IVF, and would require employer-sponsored plans and public insurance including Medicaid and military TRICARE plans to cover the treatments. Crucially, Duckworth’s bill says that state laws can’t restrict access to IVF based on someone’s marital status or sexual orientation, meaning treatments must also be covered for single women and queer couples. (Currently, many plans require a diagnosis of infertility, which is not relevant to these people.) But Trump won’t take any of those steps, nor will his party. Republicans blocked Duckworth’s bill twice last year alone. And now they want to cut hundreds of billions in health spending. Duckworth said in a statement that Trump’s “toothless” executive order “does nothing to expand access to IVF. In fact, he’s the reason IVF is at risk in the first place.” She added that if Trump actually wants to deliver on his campaign promise, he can call on Republicans to support her bill. “Otherwise, it’s all just lip service from a known liar.” But the order got largely positive or neutral coverage from most media outlets, and that may have been the point. Like most presidents, Trump’s approval rating and personal popularity have fallen since his inauguration. A Washington Post-Ipsos poll published Thursday, for example, found that 57% of respondents said Trump has exceeded his authority since taking office. People oppose pardoning the Jan. 6 rioters, deporting undocumented immigrants who aren’t criminals, firing government workers and delegating agency-slashing power to billionaire Elon Musk. Whatever good press comes from glorified press releases only lasts for so long. After that fades, Trump will be left with, at best, nothing to show for his EO — and, at worse, deregulation that will make IVF less safe and less effective for millions of Americans.
Susan Rinkunas
Susan Rinkunas is an independent journalist and co-founder of Autonomy News. Her work has appeared in Jezebel, The New Republic, The Guardian, Slate, The Nation and more. 
