Listen to the article
The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, has released a new report urging the federal government to prioritize policies that “save and restore the American family,” signaling a shift in conservative focus toward domestic issues as the midterm elections approach.
The 47-page report, published Thursday and first detailed by The Washington Post, recommends several unconventional initiatives, including a “marriage bootcamp” for cohabitating couples, a “universal day of rest” building on existing blue laws, and discouraging online dating because research suggests “couples who meet online are also less likely to get married in the first place.”
This publication marks Heritage’s continued evolution from its traditional small-government advocacy to becoming a cornerstone of the populist right. The organization has already demonstrated significant policy influence through Project 2025, which has served as a blueprint for several Trump administration initiatives in his second term.
“The government’s primary role is to clear the weeds and prevent its policies and programs from poisoning the ground,” wrote the report’s authors, led by Roger Severino, Heritage’s vice president of economic and domestic policy. “Unfortunately, except for radically redefining the institution, marriage is not currently a federal priority.”
The report comes during a period of controversy for the foundation. Last year, Heritage President Kevin Roberts defended Tucker Carlson’s podcast interview with far-right activist Nick Fuentes, known for antisemitic views. This stance triggered significant backlash, including resignations of board members, staff, and executives.
At its core, the new report argues that U.S. policy should “encourage and protect the formation of families, not mere fertility,” while opposing policies “that undermine marriage and the formation of families, or reward or encourage needless delay in marriage and out-of-wedlock births.”
Specific recommendations include reforming tax codes that “penalize marriage and encourage single parenthood” and revising education policies that “coax young Americans to delay marriage while pursuing needless credentials.”
The report also calls for President Trump to issue executive orders requiring all federal activities—from grants and contracts to regulations and research—to measure their impact on marriage and family formation, block actions discriminating against families, and prioritize initiatives supporting American families.
Not everyone supports Heritage’s vision. Eric Rosswood, author of “Journey to Parenthood: The Ultimate Guide for Same-Sex Couples,” agrees with certain aspects of the report, such as concerns about food insecurity and childcare affordability. However, he disagrees with recommendations that subsidies should favor married families or that children are best raised by biological parents.
“I think what’s due to them is a family that’s going to provide for the children and take care of the children, make sure they have a roof over their head that they have meals, they’re getting to school, parents that support their hobbies and motivate them,” said Rosswood, who is raising two children with his husband. “I don’t think that those are gender-based. I don’t think that that’s tied to biological genetics.”
During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump publicly distanced himself from Project 2025—Heritage’s nearly 900-page policy guidebook authored by many former Trump administration officials and advisors. Nevertheless, several of its recommendations have been implemented in his second term, including establishing the Department of Government Efficiency and dissolving the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Vice President JD Vance, who has praised Heritage as “the most influential engine of ideas for Republicans from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump,” frequently references his personal background when advocating policies to support parents. He has previously suggested allowing parents to vote on behalf of their children and providing low-interest loans to married couples with children.
Regarding in vitro fertilization (IVF), the Heritage report acknowledges benefits but argues against its use outside of marriage. “A babies-at-all-costs mentality would come at too great a cost, and not just financially, but morally and spiritually,” the report states, claiming it “intentionally denies a right due to every child conceived—to be born and grow in relationship with his or her mother and father bound in marriage.”
This position stands in contrast to President Trump’s recent actions to protect and expand IVF access. In the first month of his second term, Trump signed an executive order aimed at reducing IVF costs and later introduced federal guidance to allow companies to offer fertility benefits separate from major medical insurance plans.
IVF became a campaign focal point following an Alabama Supreme Court ruling that frozen embryos could be considered children under state law, prompting Alabama to later protect IVF providers from legal liability.
The White House has not yet commented on the Heritage report or whether administration officials collaborated on its development.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
12 Comments
This report raises some valid points about the importance of family, but the solutions offered seem a bit heavy-handed. I’d encourage the Heritage Foundation to engage more broadly with diverse stakeholders and perspectives as they refine their policy recommendations.
Agreed. A more collaborative, nuanced approach is likely to yield better outcomes than a one-size-fits-all set of prescriptions.
As someone with an interest in economic and social policy, I’ll be curious to see how this report is received. Strengthening the family unit can have broader positive impacts, but the recommendations need to be well-considered.
You raise a fair point. Any policies aimed at boosting marriage and family should be grounded in robust research and stakeholder input.
I’m not sure discouraging online dating is the right approach. While the research cited is interesting, people should have the freedom to choose how they meet partners. Promoting healthy relationships is good, but mandating specific methods seems heavy-handed.
I agree, that recommendation in particular seems quite misguided. Online dating has become a mainstream and often effective way for people to connect these days.
While I appreciate the intent behind this report, some of the proposals strike me as overly intrusive. Strengthening families is important, but the government should be cautious about imposing its vision too rigidly. A more flexible, supportive approach may be more effective.
While the stated goal of supporting families is laudable, some of these proposals seem quite paternalistic. Policymakers should be cautious about overstepping when it comes to personal decisions around relationships and lifestyle.
Well said. The government’s role should be to create an enabling environment, not to dictate how people live their personal lives.
This report touches on some important social issues, but the prescriptions feel a bit ideological. I’d be curious to see a more balanced, evidence-based analysis of how to strengthen families and communities in the modern era.
Interesting report from the Heritage Foundation. While promoting family values is laudable, some of the proposed initiatives seem a bit extreme. I wonder how effective a ‘marriage bootcamp’ would really be in practice.
I agree, the ‘universal day of rest’ idea in particular seems quite radical and potentially impractical to implement.