As negotiations in the Senate continue over funding for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2027, sources familiar with the situation tell The Washington Stand that an amendment that would have implemented the unrestricted use of highly controversial in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments into basic health care for military servicemembers was put forward by a Republican in a closed-door executive session, before it was ultimately dropped.

Sources confirmed Thursday that Senators Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) and Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) offered competing amendments during a closed-door executive mark-up session for the NDAA that would have expanded servicemembers’ access to IVF treatments at the expense of taxpayers as part of the military’s Tricare health insurance program, without fully addressing pro-life concerns. The Sullivan amendment reportedly was shopped around to Republican offices, but failed to garner support because it was not clear that it protected frozen embryos, most of whom are discarded or experimented upon. The language of the proposed Duckworth amendment was said to be almost identical to language first put forward in an amendment she offered during last year’s NDAA markups. A source conveyed to TWS that during the session, Duckworth told those in the room that she and Sullivan agreed to withdraw their competing amendments and, as a compromise, to offer Duckworth’s language from last year. That amendment would have enabled Tricare coverage for “fertility-related care,” an open-ended term that could include “other information, referrals, treatments, procedures, testing, medications, laboratory services, technologies, and services facilitating reproduction as determined appropriate by the Secretary of Defense.”

The attempt by a GOP lawmaker to quietly fund IVF treatments with taxpayer dollars behind closed doors comes in the wake of the Trump administration’s efforts last year to “lower costs and expand access” to IVF by attempting to help lower the cost of fertility drugs used by women for egg retrieval. But pro-life advocates say that IVF procedures involve a host of ethically and morally problematic outcomes.

Based on CDC data and estimates from the Heritage Foundation, in 2021 alone, approximately 4.1 million embryonic children were created via IVF in the U.S., but just over 97,000 babies were born as a result, amounting to just 2.3% of the embryos created. Unused embryos are routinely discarded or frozen indefinitely. While actual figures are unknown, the number of destroyed embryos is estimated to be over one million per year, and at least 1.5 million embryonic children remain indefinitely frozen.

In addition, experts note that the open-ended language of policies like the Duckworth amendment leaves the door open for cloning, including the creation of human-animal hybrids known as chimeras. Other concerns include the lack of parental rights amid the unregulated IVF industry, in which embryos have been discarded without parental consent, the exploitation of women through surrogacy’s health risks, and the fact that the underlying causes of infertility are not addressed through IVF procedures. Experts point to restorative reproductive medicine (RRM), including NaPro Technology, FEMM, and the Billings Ovulation Method as far more effective and ethical methods of treating infertility.

While the IVF amendments allowing unrestricted IVF usage for servicemembers at taxpayers’ expense have been defeated for now, experts say that pro-life advocates must be especially vigilant that the Trump administration and Republican lawmakers who claim to be pro-life refrain from putting forward policies that harm preborn children and undermine human dignity.

“It is disappointing that, behind closed doors, Republicans continue to try to expand taxpayer-funded IVF coverage despite the fact that they have been educated, year after year, about the problems, and especially the problems with expanding IVF from service-related injuries to all servicemembers and their dependents,” FRC Senior Director of Government Affairs Quena González told TWS, responding to the source. “Not only would it be immensely expensive, but it would involve taxpayer-funded creation, storage, and ultimately destruction of human lives.”

He continued, “And this is the proverbial camel’s nose under the edge of the tent. Using the NDAA to start this experiment in the military before expanding to universal coverage of IVF is particularly sneaky because, at this stage, the NDAA is being negotiated behind closed doors to protect military secrets and national security concerns. It is concerning to learn that some Republicans are using a legitimate process to hide from public accountability and cut deals on harmful language behind closed doors.”

As González underscored, “Millions of Americans would object to expansive taxpayer funding of IVF, when better alternatives exist to actually treat (rather than artificially bypass, at great human cost to all involved) the underlying causes of infertility. The military is a fighting force to deter tyrants and protect America, not a social laboratory. Military spouses and families, and the millions of Americans who fund their healthcare, deserve better.”

When asked for comment, a spokesperson for Sullivan’s office replied to TWS, “As a pro-life senator, this is a very important issue for Senator Sullivan. He believes that there is no greater gift than parenthood and understands that some families need IVF treatment to have children. However, there are significant pro-life concerns regarding IVF treatment, many of which Senator Sullivan shares. He has worked with pro-life groups on legislation in the NDAA for years. In the current NDAA, he was trying to find a path forward on this issue that takes into account those pro-life concerns. When it was clear that Democrats would block the proposal because of pro-life provisions in the proposal, he withdrew the amendment.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article was updated with a statement from Senator Dan Sullivan’s office, and additional clarifications to the markup proceedings, and a clarification that Sullivan’s measure was dropped rather than “defeated” in the original version.

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

---

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.