A growing dispute over the future of the Republican Party has intensified as President Donald Trump’s era of political dominance increasingly appears to be nearing its end. Wall Street Journal contributor Matthew Continetti says a policy fight involving a relatively obscure federal program has become part of a broader Republican “civil war” over whether the GOP should embrace “big government.”

“Trumpapalooza is over, but the debate over the GOP’s future is just beginning,” Continetti wrote on Friday. “Another skirmish broke out last week with news that the Trump administration is planning a change in family policy. What might seem at first like a minor tweak to a forgotten program has turned into a fight over JD Vance, 2028 and the direction of the conservative movement.”

The proposed change concerns the Child Care and Development Fund, a $12 billion program administered by the Health and Human Services Department. The program currently subsidizes child care for low-income workers. Since the 1990s, eligible parents have received approximately $9,000 per year to help cover child-care costs, and most recipients are single mothers.

Under the proposed rule, households in which one spouse works while the other stays home to care for children could also qualify for the subsidies. The stated goals are to encourage marriage and reduce the cost of raising children. However, because the change would not initially include an increase in the program’s budget, the funds could shift from single mothers and commercial day-care providers to married parents.

Democrats have argued that the proposal would “rob” money from single mothers so Republicans can impose “their preferred definition of what a family should look like.” Continetti says the measure has also drawn opposition from conservatives who disagree with it for different reasons.

“Family policy is another fault line dividing limited-government conservatives from nationalist conservatives such as Vice President Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who have long backed aid to married couples with children,” Continetti wrote.

Since details of the plan became public, the proposal has prompted what Continetti describes as a particularly “lively” debate among conservatives. Limited-government conservatives have raised concerns about the program’s potential cost, what they view as perverse incentives and its reliance on government-directed social policy. They point to the possibility that the $9,000 benefit could disappear as soon as a father receives a raise.

“Who works or does not work; who takes care of a child; or who takes a child to childcare is the family’s business,” wrote Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office. “It is certainly not the place of the federal government to put its thumb on the scale using taxpayer dollars.”

Continetti characterizes the disagreement as a clash between conservatives who oppose government intervention on economic, social and constitutional grounds and those who want to use government power to pursue conservative objectives.

The divide has been developing for decades. Conservatives in the latter camp previously criticized “neoconservatives” such as George W. Bush for expanding the government’s role. Continetti argues that the irony is that some of today’s most prominent supporters of using government for conservative purposes are also leading critics of neoconservatism and Bush.

“They’re due for a refresher course in history,” Continetti wrote. “Their nationalism is a different name for an old idea.”

He says nationalists who support subsidies for stay-at-home parents fit the definition of “big government conservatives” described by journalist Fred Barnes in a 1990 article for The American Spectator. Barnes wrote that such conservatives are “realistic” about the difficulty of cutting federal spending, considering it nearly impossible. They support programs that place them “on the political offensive,” hold a benign or positive view of government, and “aggressively seek to broaden the scope and maximize the funding of their programs.”

According to Continetti, supporters of Vance and Rubio’s family-policy approach express that position directly. “The welfare state already exists,” wrote Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts. “The subsidies already exist. And conservatives do not have the votes to dismantle either. Until that changes, taxpayer dollars should reward family formation, not subsidize its decline.”

Heritage vice president and former Trump administration official Roger Severino also defended the proposal. “To respond to a clear improvement in allocation of existing funds with cries of ‘socialist!’ is either grossly unserious or grossly uninformed,” Severino said.

The dispute has also drawn opposition from figures associated with limited-government conservatism. Continetti noted that Mike Pence, while serving in Congress two decades ago, led a revolt by limited-government conservatives against President Bush’s spending plans. Today, fellows at Pence’s think tank, Advancing American Freedom, make similar arguments against executive overreach, tariffs and big government. Conservative commentator and Trump loyalist Mark Levin has also spoken against the proposed family-policy change.

Continetti does not expect the disagreement to end soon. “Expect the contrast between big-government and limited-government conservatism to grow,” he concluded. “Mr. Vance clearly believes in using government to advance nationalist goals, and he’s likely to face at least one challenger who believes in limited government. That challenger is also likely to be someone from outside the administration — a senator or governor or former official who will take up the mantle of constitutionalism and free enterprise. And though Mr. Vance is favored to win that contest, the argument within conservatism will endure.”

Source: Alternet. Continetti’s cited Wall Street Journal commentary is available here.