A proposal to subsidize stay-at-home parents by drawing on a limited child care fund would deepen the strain on working families — and turn an essential economic support into a zero-sum contest.

For too many American families, child care is not simply a line item in the monthly budget. It is the deciding factor in whether a parent can take a job, stay in a job, pursue a degree or credential, or build the financial stability their children need.

That is why a new proposal reportedly being drafted by the Trump administration, pushed by Vice President J.D. Vance, should concern anyone who believes work should be a viable path to economic security. The proposal would allow married couples with a stay-at-home parent to receive federal child care subsidies, using funds from the Child Care and Development Fund — one of the country’s primary sources of assistance for low-income families who need care in order to work or attend school.

Families who choose to have one parent stay home deserve to be respected and supported. Raising children is work, whether it is paid or unpaid. But supporting stay-at-home parents should not mean taking limited resources from parents who rely on child care assistance to earn a paycheck, and our government should not be in the business of creating a hierarchy of family structures by only allowing the benefit to married couples.

That is the fundamental problem with this proposal: It treats child care assistance as a fixed pie of resources and invites policymakers to divide struggling families into competing camps. It does not create new resources for families. It risks redirecting existing resources away from low-income working parents — many of them single mothers — who already face impossible choices every day.

The Child Care and Development Fund is not an entitlement that automatically reaches everyone who qualifies. Federal data shows that only a fraction of eligible children receive assistance, in part because funding has long failed to meet the need — according to research from the First Five Years Fund, only 15% of eligible families currently receive subsidies due to a lack of funding. And the families who do receive help often still struggle to find care that is available, affordable and compatible with their work schedules.

According to federal data, more than four out of five families who receive the benefit are headed by a single parent. Behind those figures are parents trying to build a future under conditions that would overwhelm almost anyone: child care bills that rival rent or mortgage payments, wages that have not kept pace with essential costs and a care system in which providers themselves are operating on razor-thin margins.

At the nonprofit I run, Springboard to Opportunities , we work with women who are determined to move into better-paying jobs, complete training, strengthen their financial footing and create greater stability for their children. For many of the mothers we serve, child care assistance from this fund is not peripheral to that work. It is the foundation that makes it possible.

Without care, a job offer can be impossible to accept. A training program can become inaccessible. A schedule change can mean losing employment altogether. When the cost of child care consumes too much of a family’s income, work can cease to be a route to opportunity and instead become a financial calculation that does not add up.

That reality is especially acute for single parents, who have no partner whose income can cushion an unexpected expense, a gap in care or an employer’s unpredictable schedule. It is also deeply felt by child care providers , who are being asked to deliver essential early learning and care while managing high staffing costs, low pay and thin operating margins.

A serious family policy would address those realities directly. It would expand — not dilute — access to subsidized care. It would invest in the child care workforce. It would increase provider payment rates so families can actually find a slot when they receive assistance. It would recognize that parents work nontraditional hours, that care is scarce in many communities and that access to reliable child care is economic infrastructure.

There is a legitimate national conversation to be had about how government can better support parents who provide unpaid care at home. But that conversation cannot begin with a plan that will take from parents who are already struggling to remain attached to the workforce.

The question should not be whether families with a stay-at-home parent deserve help. They do. The question is whether we are willing to make the investments necessary to support all families — without forcing those with the fewest resources to bear the cost.

We do not need policies that pit one group of parents against another. We need a child care system that gives every family a real choice: the choice to work, to learn, to care for their children and to build a secure future.