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

A proposal backed by Vice President JD Vance to subsidize stay-at-home parents with up to $9,000 per child annually would invite government intrusion and undermine the initiative's original purpose of encouraging work and independence, according to a group founded by former Vice President Mike Pence.

In a one-page document, Advancing American Freedom (AAF) urged conservatives to oppose the plan, which it said would "expose the sanctity of the family to government intrusion, punish work, and create new avenues for fraud."

Vance is pushing for the expansion of the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), which was created during the Clinton administration to help low-income and working-class families pay for childcare. 

The program provides about $9,000 per child annually, with funds typically paid directly to childcare providers.

CONSERVATIVES CAN FIGHT THE RISE OF SOCIALISM BY DEFENDING THE AMERICAN FAMILY

Under Vance's draft plan, families with a stay-at-home parent earning below state income limits could receive up to $9,000 per child annually. To qualify, a married couple must feature one spouse who stays at home while the other works at least 35 hours a week.

Unmarried couples and non-working single parents would not be eligible.

"Parenting is the most difficult job in the world. Vice President Vance is right to focus on the family," AAF President Tim Chapman told Fox News Digital. 

"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."

AAF looks forward to the continued debate about family policy and the future of the conservative movement, Chapman added.

EXCLUSIVE: VIDEO SHOWS MICHIGAN LAWMAKER TOURING DAYCARE IN $1.1M TAXPAYER FUNDING PROBE

Roughly 870,000 families — 80% of whom are single parents, predominantly mothers — receive up to $9,000 a year per child, the AAF said. Expanding eligibility to stay-at-home parents, the group warned, could create more competition for already limited resources. The CCDF is already stretched thin, with nearly one-third of states having waitlists, according to AAF.

Vance's plan would require an auditable "childcare service," the group said, and could open the door to fraud if not properly monitored.

"We generally like these kinds of different creative proposals. There's no job that's more difficult than raising kids," John Shelton, the vice president of policy at AAF, told Fox News Digital. "And, so, that's a laudable thing, but the devil's in the details.

"What should be this opportunity for celebration and excitement could actually end up being this huge setback where you get a $1,000, $5,000 bonus, and suddenly you lose out on access to north of $10,000 depending on how many kids you have," he added. 

"That's a disincentive to work to kind of grow and get promoted. That is not the kind of conservative ideal for how these programs should work."

NEWT GINGRICH: WANT TO REFORM MEDICAID? ACCOUNTABILITY IS THE WAY FORWARD

Furthermore, stay-at-home spouses would be penalized for taking on remote, part-time or gig work, and families could take a financial hit for receiving a raise or promotion at work.

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

PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY WAS RIGHT: AMERICA MUST PUT BABIES AND MOTHERS FIRST

Supporters argue stay-at-home parents should receive financial support on par with families that use subsidized childcare services.

"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," Roger Severino, vice president of the Heritage Foundation, wrote on X. "It’s illogical and unjust and this proposal would level the playing field."

Shelton praised the Trump administration’s intent but argued the policy's execution falls short.

"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.

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House and Vance's office for comment.