A new policy threatens military families’ ability to build families, fueling frustration among service members and their supporters. In a contentious move, Congress removed a provision from the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would have expanded TRICARE insurance coverage to include in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intrauterine insemination (IUI) for active-duty military members and their dependents. This decision leaves military families feeling betrayed and facing significant financial burdens and barriers to accessing critical fertility treatments.
Story Snapshot
- TRICARE coverage for IVF was removed from the NDAA, sparking outrage.
- Military families feel betrayed despite bipartisan support for the provision.
- High out-of-pocket costs and limited clinic access exacerbate the issue.
- Pro-life groups influence the decision, citing ethical concerns.
Removal of IVF Coverage Sparks Outrage
In a contentious move, Congress removed a provision from the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would have expanded TRICARE insurance coverage to include in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intrauterine insemination (IUI) for active-duty military members and their dependents. The provision’s removal has left military families feeling betrayed, particularly after bipartisan support in earlier House and Senate versions. These families now face significant financial burdens and barriers to accessing fertility treatments.
The exclusion of IVF coverage from the NDAA highlights a stark contrast between benefits available to military families and those granted to federal employees. In 2023, the D.C. city council extended IVF coverage to federal civilian employees, including Congress members and staff. This disparity is particularly frustrating for military families, who often endure frequent relocations, limited clinic access, and high out-of-pocket expenses averaging over $30,000 per IVF cycle.
Ethical Concerns and Political Influences
House Speaker Mike Johnson reportedly directed the removal of the IVF provision, citing concerns about ethical implications associated with embryo destruction. Pro-life groups, such as the Family Research Council, have supported the exclusion, arguing for alternatives that respect the sanctity of life. This decision aligns with Johnson’s push for “ethical” IVF practices, but has left many military families feeling unsupported and undervalued.
Despite President Donald Trump’s previous campaign promise to expand IVF access for military families, the provision’s removal signals a departure from those assurances. Advocates like Ashley Eshelman of the Building Military Families Network emphasize the negative impact on morale and retention, urging lawmakers to reconsider the decision and address the inequities faced by service members.
Future Prospects and Advocacy Efforts
With the exclusion of IVF coverage from the NDAA now finalized, attention shifts towards standalone bills like the IVF for Military Families Act, introduced earlier in April 2025. Advocates continue to push for equitable fertility treatment options, highlighting the sacrifices made by military families and the necessity of addressing these disparities to support service member retention and morale.
The ongoing debate underscores broader issues of military readiness and family-building challenges within the armed forces. As advocates work to restore IVF provisions, the political and social discourse surrounding this issue remains a critical point of contention, reflecting larger themes of ethical governance and support for those who serve our nation.
Watch the report: House Speaker Removes Military IVF Coverage From Defense Bill
Sources:
Military families are ‘pissed’ after IVF coverage cut from defense bill
U.S. House passes defense bill stripped of IVF provision
2026 National Defense Authorization Act targets woke ideology, cuts IVF for military families
NMFA condemns removal of IVF coverage for military families in final FY26 NDAA