Paying mothers to stay home is not family policy. It is a trap.

By Ariane de Liedekerke, Network and Community Manager at Make Mothers Matter (MMM)

Although the Trump administration proposal to provide support to stay-at-home parents may have some appeal, it is nothing more than a trap for mothers, and for society as a whole.

A trap into which women may be lured by a benefit of around $9,000 per child per year, towards a one-size fits all traditional version of a family. A trap designed to make people believe there is one better way of being a parent, to keep single-parents away from essential social benefits, women inside abusive marriages, or mothers outside of the workforce.

There is intelligence in targeting both parents with the measure. But the measure reduces women to motherhood. The fact is that, according to data from the Pew Research Center, in the US, mothers account for 82% of all stay-at home parents. So, while it is supposedly aimed at both parents, the measure risks pushing more mothers further into their family duties, and further away from other aspects of their life.

As with any other trap, this measure is manipulative. It rests on an assumption that it supports: that children only thrive when they are with their mothers. But children thrive when they receive the nurturing, stimulation and support they need — and this can take many forms. The work of Nobel Prize winner James Heckman demonstrates the importance of investing in high-quality early childhood development, including support for children and their families.

And although, at MMM, we know the importance of mother-child bonding, especially in early childhood, we also know the weight of being reduced to motherhood, and that diverse caring possibilities are part of what frees women from that reduction. Care cannot be the mother’s responsibility alone — it is also for fathers, co-parents and societies to share.

The proposal raises serious concerns:

First, it draws on a fund meant to help working families access childcare. By directing support towards stay-at-home parents rather than working parents who need childcare, the policy risks hindering mothers from having financial independence and career progression, or from building a life outside the home. It also risks pushing mothers and families, particularly single mother families, into poverty.

The proposal of a yearly payment hides the real cost of a paused career: lost income, lost pension contributions, stalled progression, and the difficulty of re-entering the workforce years later. That cost does not disappear: it is simply and quietly pushed onto women.

Second, it is restricted to married couples. If passed, this measure would actively reinforce differences between families: giving one type of family the means to thrive while leaving all others without the support all families need to get by — creating the illusion that the first type succeeds while the others merely struggle. It endangers families outside the married-couple model, especially single-mother families, and risks undermining social cohesion itself. Married-couple families exist, and remain a social norm in many parts of the world — but to treat them as the only way families are, or should be, is nothing more than fiction.

How a woman becomes a mother is not only a matter of intention — it is also, substantially and really, a matter of the life she is born into and the life that unfolds: where she is born, where she lives, what resources she has, who she shares her life with, how she became a mother, and, crucially, who the father or co-parent is — present or gone, peaceful, toxic, or violent. Life is complex. “Married” is not always the box it fits into.

And that complexity is not experienced equally. According to data shared by the Center for American Progress, single motherhood is significantly more common among Black and Hispanic mothers: in 2023, 47% of Black mothers and 25% of Hispanic mothers were single mothers, compared with 21% of mothers overall. These mothers already face greater economic insecurity. A policy that privileges married couples therefore risks deepening existing inequalities for mothers from racialised and ethnic minority backgrounds.

Third, through a capped annual payment, the State offloads onto citizens – or should we say mothers – its responsibility to provide adequate infrastructure for family life, with a clear aim at quality childcare for working parents. The policy participates in what MMM fights against: considering motherhood as a private issue, when it is, in fact, a collective one.

At MMM, we want mothers to be supported. Good family policy expands opportunities. It does not narrow them. It recognises the value of care — including the essential, often unpaid care provided within families — and recognises that this care benefits not only individual families, but society as a whole. It helps parents reconcile paid work and family life. It invests in affordable, high-quality childcare. It enables both parents to take time to care for their children and encourages fathers and co-parents to take their full share of caregiving responsibilities. It protects pension rights and career progression for those who provide care.

And above all, good family policy recognises the value of care without women having to pay for it at the expense of their economic independence.