The U.S. total fertility rate has fallen from 2.1 births per woman in 1990 to just 1.62 births per woman in 2023. This decline has prompted concern from 'natalist' advocates like Vice President JD Vance, who has characterized the trend as a "civilizational crisis" and criticized the "childless left" for having "little stake in the future." Similarly, Elon Musk, father of at least 14 children, has frequently voiced concerns about population decline, despite being criticized by at least one of his children for being "critical and absent.". Falling birth rates will exacerbate current labor shortages over time; the effect has been masked by immigration compensating for the declining numbers of american-born new workers, but given the recent successes in curtailing immigration that mask will soon slip.
A key reason why women are choosing to have fewer children, or to have no children at all, is the skyrocketing cost of childcare which can put it out of the reach of less affluent parents. Childcare costs in the US vary widely but, according to Care.com, generally range from $400 to $1,500 per month for infant care, with some areas exceeding $2,000. Annual costs can range from $5,357 to $17,171 per child. The national average is around $11,000 per year. These costs can consume a significant portion of a family's income, with some families spending up to 20% or more of their income on childcare.
As states seek solutions to make childcare more affordable and accessible, Idaho's recently enacted daycare legislation has emerged as a focal point of debate, representing a bold experiment in deregulation that could reshape childcare policy nationwide. Let's take a closer look at how the states are responding to the childcare challenge, and the competing philosophies behind the approaches.
Project 2025: Stay at Home, Mom!
The Heritage Foundation's influential Project 2025 blueprint articulates a dramatic reconfiguration of America's approach to childcare. This conservative manifesto calls for the elimination of Head Start, the federal preschool program that serves nearly 800,000 young children from low-income families, and advocates instead for childcare funding to either pay parents to stay home or be directed toward "familial, in-home child care." Project 2025 frames institutional early childhood programs as government overreach that undermines traditional family structures and parental authority. It argues that professional credentials and educational requirements for childcare providers represent unnecessary barriers that drive up costs without providing commensurate benefits. The document characterizes government-subsidized childcare centers as vehicles for progressive indoctrination and proposes redirecting resources toward models that keep children in home environments, preferably with their own mothers or in small, neighborhood-based care arrangements with minimal regulatory oversight. This approach aligns with the broader natalist agenda to increase birth rates by reinforcing traditional gender roles and family structures.
The White House is reportedly fielding ideas to boost birth rates ahead of a policy blueprint expected in May, with childcare policy playing a central role in these discussions. It is widely expected that the Project 2025 blueprint will feature heavily. But as we'll see, some states aren't waiting for the president.
Idaho H0243: The Conservative Blueprint for Childcare Reform
In March 2025, Idaho Governor Brad Little signed House Bill 243, making Idaho the latest state to enact significant changes to its daycare licensing laws. The bill, which takes effect in July, represents a distillation of conservative thinking on childcare: less government regulation, more parental choice, and a preference for home-based care over institutional settings.
The legislation makes several key changes to Idaho's already minimally regulated childcare system:
- It removes references to "minimum standards" in the state's policy statement, shifting emphasis away from universal requirements
- It adds a detailed definition of "supervision" with specific requirements based on a child's age and activities
- It modifies child-to-staff ratio calculations by adjusting point values for each age group
- It restricts local governments from implementing stricter safety standards than the state
- It directs the Department of Health and Welfare to move all necessary rules into statutory code by July 2026
What makes Idaho's approach particularly noteworthy is that it was initially introduced as a bill to abolish maximum staff-to-child ratios entirely – a measure that would have made Idaho the first state in the nation to eliminate this fundamental safety standard. Although this most extreme provision was ultimately removed after public outcry, the modified bill still loosens ratios for older children while maintaining Idaho's already generous 1-to-6 ratio for infants.
Republican Representative Barbara Ehardt, who co-introduced the bill, explained the philosophy behind it: "Sometimes a state has to be first. I just think that every state right now is facing the same problem." She argued that government subsidies have failed to solve the childcare crisis despite rising costs: "The only solution that has been offered is, hey, can you guys give us more money so we can have more grant money? What is it you're doing? We're paying our workers more. That hasn't solved anything, right?"
Her co-sponsor, Representative Rod Furniss, predicted that deregulation would create a more efficient market. "I'm a businessman. My degree is in finance," he said. "I understand revenue, I understand expenses, I understand fixed costs. I also understand markets, and I think those people are really smart that run those day care centers, and I think they'll get creative. They'll sharpen their pencil."
The Human Cost: Safety Concerns
The debate over childcare regulation in Idaho gained urgency after the tragic death of 11-week-old Logan Emry in June 2024. Logan died of asphyxiation after being left unattended for three hours at an in-home daycare where the provider was caring for 11 children alone – far exceeding Idaho's legal requirement of one staff member per six children. Ironically, just eight months later, Republican lawmakers introduced H0243, which initially sought to eliminate these same safety standards.
State records obtained by Vox revealed dozens of instances of abuse, neglect, and ratio violations in Idaho over the past five years. In one case, investigators found a provider caring for 30 children alone; in another, a child was left in a van for four hours with staff threatened to keep quiet about it.
A National Movement: Childcare Deregulation Across the States
Idaho's legislation isn't happening in isolation. A review of current childcare legislation across the country reveals a growing movement to relax regulations, particularly in Republican-controlled states.
Analysis of current childcare legislation shows at least 45 bills related to staff-to-child ratios across 13 states, with Connecticut, Minnesota, and Indiana leading the way. Similarly, 44 bills address qualification and training requirements for childcare workers, with Minnesota alone considering 7 such bills.
The map below shows the key bills. Click a state to see the bills, and then click 'Detail' to see the individual bill pages.
Among the most significant developments:
Tennessee has recently enacted two companion bills (HB0106 and SB1288) that expand exemptions from child care licensing requirements. These bills create new categories of exempt childcare programs, including "Gym Care" programs allowing up to two hours of childcare while parents exercise, and "Tennessee Professional Sporting Event Care" programs for children of players and coaches. The legislation also exempts after-school programs serving fewer than five children from licensing requirements.
Utah has enacted HB0410, which recognizes employment as a preschool teacher in a childcare program as equivalent to employment in traditional school settings for license renewal. The bill also allows municipalities to use housing and transit reinvestment zone funds for the construction or expansion of childcare facilities.
Connecticut is considering HB06839, which would increase the maximum number of children permitted in a family childcare home from nine to twelve, provided that an approved assistant or substitute staff member is present. This represents a 33% increase in capacity without proportional staffing increases.
Minnesota has multiple bills addressing childcare capacity, including SF1642, which would exclude up to two of a caregiver's own children when calculating licensed capacity limits, and SF2991, which would increase the maximum licensed capacity for group family daycare from 14 to 18 children.
North Carolina's S528, which has crossed over from one legislative chamber to the other, modifies qualifications for childcare workers and revises standards around capacity limits.
Several states, including Wisconsin, South Dakota, and Utah, have already increased the maximum number of children each provider can legally supervise, while South Carolina, Iowa, and Kansas have all moved to relax qualification requirements for childcare workers.
This wave of deregulation reflects a coordinated effort to reshape childcare policy at the state level while laying groundwork for potential federal changes. With the appointment of Idaho's health and welfare director Alex Adams to the Administration for Children and Families within the Department of Health and Human Services, these state-level approaches could soon influence federal childcare funding and regulations.
Staff Qualifications: A Central Issue in State Reforms
Beyond ratio adjustments, qualification requirements for childcare workers represent another significant area of regulatory reform. Across the country, 44 bills currently address staff qualifications and training, with varying approaches to the issue.
Minnesota is leading this effort with 7 qualification-related bills, including HF628, which modifies licensing standards for child care centers with a focus on staff qualifications and training requirements. Kansas's HB2045 seeks to reduce training requirements for childcare staff while creating a process for day care facilities to apply for temporary waivers of certain statutory requirements.
Oklahoma's HB2895 provides a one-year probationary period for childcare teachers who need to meet educational qualifications, a measure designed to address worker shortages by easing entry into the field. Washington State's HB1363 substantially revises licensing requirements, focusing on streamlining qualifications while maintaining safety standards.
North Carolina's S528 introduces more flexibility in qualifications, while still ensuring basic safeguards remain in place. These adjustments reflect a broader trend toward recognizing experience alongside formal education and reducing barriers to entry in the childcare workforce.
Competing Visions and Equity Concerns
The childcare debate represents fundamentally different approaches to America's future. The conservative vision, exemplified by Idaho's H0243, emphasizes deregulation, parental choice, and market solutions. This approach assumes fewer rules will lead to more affordable care and increased options, particularly in the form of home-based providers.
Representative Ehardt described creating legislation to make it "less of a psychological leap for stay-at-home moms to open their own businesses," while Representative Furniss highlighted home daycare as "perhaps the most important" small business, "where moms can stay home and supplement the household income and watch a few kids." This aligns with Project 2025's calls to eliminate Head Start in favor of "familial, in-home child care."
Childcare providers challenge this market-based approach. Krystal McFarlane, a Trump voter who directs TLC for Tots in Nampa, Idaho, stated bluntly: "You could create 100 in-home day cares directly around my business, but no amount of competition will decrease my operating costs." Mary Clements, who runs a Montessori daycare in Boise, argued that "there is only one thing that will offer cheaper child care in today's day and age, and that's government subsidies."
The debate raises serious equity questions. When asked about concerns that wealthy families would continue to choose safe options while low-income families would face riskier alternatives, Representative Furniss suggested parents could use background check apps to vet providers, adding that "Low-income mothers... have a sense, and they know whether that person is going to take care of their kid."
This places the burden of safety assessment on time-constrained parents. As Justin Snyder testified, "When you have two parents working full time or even multiple jobs, they don't have the time to be fully vetting or running their own background checks on every provider."
The Economic Reality: The True Cost of Quality Care
At the heart of the childcare debate lies a fundamental economic challenge: quality childcare is labor-intensive and expensive to provide, yet most families cannot afford to pay what it truly costs.
Childcare providers face rising costs for insurance, rent, and staff wages, which have been traditionally and unsustainably low. As McFarlane noted, "One of the biggest problems has always been that staff are considered 'non-skilled workers' and that families don't believe we are worth very much." Before the pandemic, teachers at her center earned about $9 an hour, which quickly became too low to attract and retain staff. The center's new average salary is about $13 to $14 an hour, still well below Idaho's average hourly wage of $26.75.
The economic impact of inadequate childcare extends far beyond individual families. Idaho has a severe labor shortage, with just 53 available workers for every 100 open jobs. More than a quarter of Idaho parents say childcare has affected their employment, according to a US Chamber of Commerce Foundation report, which also found that the resulting absences and business turnover cost the state $65 million in tax revenue every year.
Nationally, businesses lose between $400 million and $3 billion annually due to employee disruptions caused by childcare challenges. Taking care of one's home and family remains the top reason mothers don't participate in the workforce, and for those who wish to work, accessible and affordable childcare is a major barrier.
Conclusion: The Path Forward
As America confronts declining birth rates and workforce shortages, Idaho's H0243 represents one approach to making childcare more accessible through deregulation and market solutions. While conservatives hope this will create a more accessible childcare system aligning with traditional family values, safety concerns and economic realities raise significant questions about this model.
The sustainable solution may lie in balancing safety standards with expanded access and affordability, potentially through targeted subsidies and recognition of childcare's essential economic function. As home daycare owner Glenda Kestle noted, the current system makes it nearly impossible to earn a living wage while providing quality care: "My daughter and I — we make maybe $10 an hour, and my daughter has a bachelor's degree."
With states continuing to experiment with different approaches, the stakes remain high for child safety, family economic security, and America's demographic future.
Thanks to The Vox article "Conservatives have a plan for cheaper day care. But is it safe?" by Rachel Cohen for inspiration and content.
About BillTrack50 – BillTrack50 offers free tools for citizens to easily research legislators and bills across all 50 states and Congress. BillTrack50 also offers professional tools to help organizations with ongoing legislative and regulatory tracking, as well as easy ways to share information both internally and with the public.