In June 2026, the Trump administration announced nearly $2 million in federal grant funding for an Embryo Adoption Awareness and Services (EAA) program administered through the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
While embryo adoption programs have existed at the federal level since 2002, the new grant notice contains language that may have far-reaching implications for reproductive health law, in vitro fertilization (IVF) regulation, and the ongoing legal debate over fetal personhood.
Adoption Awareness and Services Program: What Changed
The original program, established under President George W. Bush in 2002, was framed as a public awareness initiative to inform Americans that frozen embryo donation and adoption is an option. The new HHS grant notice makes a notable departure: it repeatedly refers to frozen embryos as “children who already exist” and frames the program around the “wellbeing and best interests of the child.” The document uses the word “child” or “children” nearly 40 times in reference to frozen embryos and explicitly references the “rights” of the embryo—language that seemingly goes beyond prior iterations of the program.
Advocates for access to reproductive care have noted that earlier grant notices—including those from 2017 and 2021—contained no such child-welfare framing, instead focusing on making embryo adoption “more practically accessible to infertile couples.” This shift from awareness-raising to child-welfare framing may not be merely rhetorical. By embedding child-welfare and rights language into a federal grant framework, the current administration is contributing to a growing body of administrative and policy authority that makes embryo personhood arguments more viable in court over time—particularly in state wrongful death suits against fertility clinics and in statutory construction disputes over the meaning of “child” or “person” under existing law.
The Fetal Personhood Dimension
The legal significance of the language in the new grant notice lies in its potential use as precedent in fetal personhood arguments. Organizations advocating for legal personhood status for embryos and fetuses have long sought to establish a body of law—statutory, regulatory, and administrative—that treats embryos as rights-bearing persons. Federal grant language that classifies frozen embryos as “children” with “rights” provides a foothold for that argument in federal court.
The current administration has taken several steps consistent with a fetal personhood framework: Executive Order 14168 defined sex as determined “at conception”; officials at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) publicly classified intrauterine devices (IUDs), birth control pills, and hormonal implants as “abortifacient birth control” and directed the destruction of nearly $10 million in such contraceptives held abroad; and new HHS guidelines overhauled the federal Title X family planning program to shift its focus away from contraception and toward “strengthening family formation.” The EAA grant notice appears to be the latest step in this series of actions.
Implications for IVF and Fertility Treatment
For health care providers and fertility clinics, this development warrants close attention. Standard IVF practice involves the creation of multiple embryos, some of which are ultimately discarded or not transferred. The new grant notice explicitly prohibits federal funds from going toward any activity that discards or destroys human embryos, and expresses concern about the “surplus” of embryos created through IVF.
While this restriction only applies to the grant program itself, it signals a policy orientation that could, if extended through future regulation or litigation, create legal exposure for fertility clinics. The Alabama Supreme Court’s February 2024 ruling—in LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine—that frozen embryos constituted “extrauterine children” under the state’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, and the significant disruption to IVF services that followed, offer a preview of what such a legal shift could mean in practice. As we have previously highlighted on this blog, that ruling created immediate liability exposure for fertility providers and prompted emergency legislative action to shield IVF clinics from wrongful death claims—underscoring how quickly a shift in legal status for embryos can translate into operational and legal risk for health care providers.
Faith-Based Provider Preferences
The grant notice also indicates that faith-based organizations are “integral partners” in the program and signals a shift away from the prior administration’s grant recipients. Under the Biden administration, EAA grants went to secular agencies that served same-sex couples, while the current notice appears designed to redirect funding toward faith-based organizations. Reproductive health providers, fertility clinics, and LGBTQ-serving organizations should monitor how grant awards are made and whether the criteria used in the selection process raise nondiscrimination concerns.
Takeaways for Fertility and Reproductive Healthcare Providers
The practical implications of this grant notice will depend heavily on how the administration follows up—whether through formal rulemaking, additional agency guidance, or litigation by third parties. But providers need not wait for that uncertainty to resolve before taking preparatory steps. These steps should include the following:
Audit Federal Funding Relationships
Any organization that receives federal grants or participates in federally funded programs should review whether evolving HHS definitions of “child,” “person,” or “life” appear in the terms and conditions of existing awards—and flag any language that could create compliance tension with standard clinical practice, including embryo disposition protocols.
Review and Update Informed Consent Documentation
The grant notice’s emphasis on the “rights” of embryos and the “best interests of the child” signals a policy environment in which existing consent forms for IVF patients—particularly those addressing embryo disposition, donation, and discard—may face heightened scrutiny. Providers should ensure their forms are legally current and clearly document patient decision-making.
Assess Liability Exposure for Embryo Disposition Practices
As we highlighted in our prior coverage of the Alabama ruling, wrongful death claims against fertility providers are a real and documented risk. Providers should work with counsel to evaluate whether their current embryo handling, storage, and disposition practices are adequately documented and defensible.
Monitor for Formal Rulemaking
A grant notice carries limited legal authority on its own. The more significant risk is if HHS moves to codify this language through notice-and-comment rulemaking, which would carry binding regulatory weight. Providers and their counsel should subscribe to HHS and Office of Population Affairs rulemaking updates and be prepared to submit comments if a relevant proposed rule is issued.
We will continue to monitor developments in this area.
