For those chasing the American dream, a new study has some insightful information about what it takes to attain it – along with data that might determine the best states to set down roots.

Declining marriages and broken families are crippling predominantly blue states, while red states thrive with better economic mobility, education and lower crime, according to a 2026 Family Structure Index released Tuesday by the Ohio-based Center for Christian Virtue.

In partnership with the Institute for Family Studies, the report examined three core factors: marriage rates, family stability and fertility rates. It also tracked cost of living, religious participation, family instability, and education levels, finding wide gaps across states that affect the “health and attainability of the American Dream.”

“This report should serve as a wake-up call for policymakers and community leaders across the country,” CCV President Aaron Baer told Fox News Digital.

TAX AND RUN: HOW NY AND CALIFORNIA ARE BLEEDING PEOPLE AND PROSPERITY

Baer added that government programs alone “can’t replace strong families.”

“No amount of paid family leave, childcare subsidies, or social experimentation will rebuild the foundation that families provide,” he said. “If those policies were enough, states like California and New York would be leading the way. The data show otherwise. If we’re serious about reducing poverty and expanding opportunity, we need to strengthen the institutions that have always made America strong: faith, family, and economic freedom.”

The report finds that only 1 in 3 Americans believe in the American Dream.

The index clearly shows geographic divides. Red states like Utah rank first in family stability, while blue states like New Mexico trail behind.

Rocky Mountain and Great Plains states generally have higher marriage and fertility rates, according to the report.

Behind Utah, the rest of the top 5 states for family stability were Idaho, Nebraska, South Dakota and North Dakota. 

The bottom five states: Vermont, Nevada, Louisiana, Rhode Island, and New Mexico.

These differences are now impacting where people choose to live, according to the report.

South Carolina, for example, has seen marriage rates rise and its ranking on this list improve; while Hawaii has fallen as marriage rates decline and housing costs remain high.

HERITAGE FOUNDATION WARNS AMERICA ‘DANGEROUSLY CLOSE’ TO FAMILY BREAKDOWN POINT OF NO RETURN

As these pressures grow, more Americans are leaving high-cost blue states for more affordable red states.

“Strong families are the foundation of a healthy society,” Baer said in a press release. “This report shows that when family structure weakens, the effects ripple outward to our schools, our communities and our economy. But it also makes clear that this is not inevitable. There is a solution and a path forward.”

Notably, the report highlights a clear link between family structure and economic outcomes. 

States with more married parents saw lower child poverty rates, better educational outcomes, less crime and stronger economies, while those with higher shares of single-parent households face long-term challenges.

Other contributing factors also emerged. 

States with higher religious participation saw higher birth rates, while expensive housing markets are tied to lower fertility rates, according to the report. Education also plays a role as more college-educated adults are more likely to form stable families due to economic security.

Since 2000, the national index score has dropped from 100 to 87.3, signaling a decline in family structure, the report added. While marriage rates have stabilized in recent years, fertility rates continue to fall and pose lasting constraints for future generations.

However, these trends do vary across both red and blue states, according to a CCV spokesperson, who said the report “also underscores that these trends are not confined to any one region or political ideology.”

The findings have prompted calls for policy changes focusing on strengthening families and economic conditions.

NEW POLL FINDS AMERICANS LIKELY TO SEE EACH OTHER AS ‘MORALLY BAD’ — BUT EXPERT SAYS STRONG FAMILIES CAN HELP

“The lesson going forward is clear,” Baer said. “Red and blue states alike should advance policies that make housing more affordable, ensure good-paying jobs are within reach, keep taxes low, and expand access to quality education.”

Baer added this comes down to the impact of stable households. 

Stable two-parent homes are linked to higher college graduation rates and a better shot at reaching the middle class, the report said. Married adults are also about 80% less likely to live in poverty than single adults.

“Family structure is one of the strongest predictors we have for whether children and communities are thriving,” University of Virginia sociology professor and lead researcher Brad Wilcox said in a press release. “States that are doing well in this area have markedly lower levels of child poverty, as well as higher rates of economic mobility and homeownership.”

For many, economic realities have continued to fuel skepticism about the American Dream. Since 1980, fewer adults ages 25 to 54 have been able to buy homes, and only about 50% of those born in the 1980s earn more than their parents—down from 90% among those born in the 1940s.

Marriage rates fell sharply from 2000 to 2010, followed by a 17% drop over the next decade, as “upward mobility has been cut nearly in half over two generations,” the report said.

“This isn’t just about statistics,” Baer said. “It’s about real children and real futures. If we want to see our nation thrive, we have to be serious about strengthening marriage and supporting families in every community.”

Blue may be a royal favorite, but behind palace walls, it has reportedly sparked quiet battles over who gets to wear it.

Royal commentator Amanda Matta told Fox News Digital that Queen Camilla’s go-to shade isn’t just a fashion statement — it may be her way of signaling authority behind palace doors.

“Protecting Camilla’s use of blue would have enforced a visual hierarchy for royal events,” Matta explained.

KATE MIDDLETON LOOKS ELEGANT IN CREAM SET WITH PRINCE WILLIAM AND THEIR KIDS AS THEY RETURN TO EASTER SERVICE

“Let’s not forget that Camilla entered palace life amid significant public skepticism, and she has spent the last two decades meticulously rewriting her story,” Matta shared. “Her preference for a saturated, commanding royal blue has been central to that project in recent years. Her preferred shade is literally ‘royal blue.’”

Matta also said in a recent TikTok video that the color is beloved among royal wives and allegedly caused tension over who gets to wear it.

“Never forget Camilla claiming blue and telling other royals, namely Kate [Middleton], they could not wear it,” she claimed on the platform.

WATCH: KATE MIDDLETON MAKES KEY DECISIONS FOR ROYALS AS FUTURE QUEEN: EXPERT

A source previously told the U.K.’s Express that the color blue was “problematic” for royal dressers because it was said to be a favorite of both Camilla and the Princess of Wales. But because Camilla is the most senior woman in the royal family, she had first dibs on wearing the beloved hue.

“The queen is now able to choose her outfits before all the other women in the royal family,” a source told the outlet. “It’s part of the royal pecking order, and that includes the clothes and color. Her Majesty’s favorite color is blue, and so is Kate’s. Sophie [Duchess of Edinburgh] is also quite fond of it.”

“There was a time when [royal dresser] Jacqui [Meakin] was a bit apprehensive to allow blue to be worn at the same time as the queen, but she’s relaxed that now, as long as the blues are very different shades,” said the insider.

Fox News Digital reached out to Buckingham Palace for comment.

“The fact that Meakin eventually relaxed the rule, allowing different shades to be used simultaneously, could suggest that the initial enforcement created enough friction that a diplomatic solution became necessary,” said Matta. “The royals love their blue. It could also signal that Camilla feels secure enough in her role as queen to cede some territory, sartorially speaking.”

“There’s likely no written rule about blue, but what there is involves a web of informal understandings maintained by the people closest to each principal royal,” Matta shared. “The only thing unusual about Meakin acting as a color gatekeeper is that it became public knowledge. Past dressers like Angela Kelly also ruled over visuals with an iron fist.”

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT NEWSLETTER

It was Meghan Markle who publicly spoke about royal dressing protocol in her 2022 Netflix docuseries, “Harry & Meghan.” The American actress became the Duchess of Sussex when she married Britain’s Prince Harry in 2018.

“Most of the time I was in the U.K., I rarely wore color,” she said. “To my understanding, you can’t ever wear the same color as Her Majesty (Queen Elizabeth) if there’s a group event, but then you shouldn’t be wearing the same color as one of the other more senior members of the family.”

The Express previously reported that, according to sources, Meakin “ruffled a few feathers” at Buckingham Palace by being “too strict over outfit color choices, most notably the color blue.”

“Those reports of Jacqui Meakin ‘ruffling feathers’ over blue aren’t surprising if you know how royal dressers operate,” said Matta. “Whoever controls the queen’s wardrobe can also come to feel that they hold real institutional power.”

British broadcaster and photographer Helena Chard told Fox News Digital that while royal fashion hierarchy protocol has become “fairly relaxed” in recent years, there is still a reported “order of precedence” that dressers follow.

LIKE WHAT YOU’RE READING? CLICK HERE FOR MORE ENTERTAINMENT NEWS

“The queen gets first dibs at her outfit choice,” said Chard. “Her preference overrides others. It is well documented that Queen Camilla, Princess Catherine, and indeed Sophie, Duchess of Edinburgh, love wearing the color blue. There was talk of stepping on royal toes when it comes to blue outfits. However, I think you’ll find it was the dressers kicking up a royal fuss!”

“In the royal family, fashion is a carefully curated statement,” said Chard. “No accidental color clashes are allowed! But occasionally, we have seen a display of planned family unity with an outfit color.

“But to avoid any possible stepping on royal toes, the rules have relaxed around the regal color blue, allowing royal women to wear different shades of blue. This allows the message of calm stability to shine through.”

British royals expert Hilary Fordwich told Fox News Digital that while the most senior woman in the royal family can choose her outfits before others, she doubted a so-called “battle over blue.”

“All royal households have always been intensely hierarchical,” she said. “Dress code is just one of the main ways to visually depict such. It’s more procedural than personal and quite regular. The only out-of-order issue at hand is the queen consort’s dresser becoming so involved with some sort of enforcement.”

“Princess Catherine and others have been seen so many times in blue, it seems rather dubious a claim,” she argued. “I haven’t heard anything about any such tension.”

The Express reported that Queen Elizabeth II’s dresser, Angela Kelly, was once “one of the most powerful women in Buckingham Palace,” raising questions about how much authority a dresser has.

But Matta noted that blue, as a royal signature, has deep roots.

“Queen Elizabeth liked it because it matched her eyes, though I believe it was Norman Hartnell who first dressed her in blue for that reason,” Matta explained.

“Blue communicates loyalty, stability and trustworthiness,” she said. “For a monarchy positioning the Waleses as the steady future of the institution, it’s ideal visual shorthand that also creates cohesive imagery. Notably, we’ve seen Kate favor pastel shades of blue much more than a commanding royal blue. Only since becoming Princess of Wales has she really started to make use of more saturated tones.”

Whether intentional or not, the message behind the monarchy’s carefully coordinated outfits is clear: In royal circles, even a color choice can signal who holds power.

If you thought the Congressional appropriations process couldn’t get any worse, I present you with 2026. And perhaps beyond.

The Department of Homeland Security remains shut down, running on pocket lint, nickels lost between the couch cushions and faded S&H Green Stamps (look ‘em up, kids). Congress hasn’t funded DHS for two months. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., torqued himself into a political pretzel – opposing, then supporting, then not acting on – a Senate-approved package to fund most of DHS.

As we always say, it’s about the math, and when it comes to DHS money, it appears that lawmakers have locked a box to which they lack the combination. There is apparently no sequence of votes in the House and Senate which can crack the DHS safe as a traditional, standalone appropriations bill. 

REPORTER’S NOTEBOOK: WHY TRUMP MAY NOT BE ABLE TO FORCE CONGRESS BACK OVER THE DHS SHUTDOWN

Now, Congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump are turning to one of the few methods which might work to fund DHS – something called budget reconciliation.

The Congressional budget reconciliation process is not customarily used for appropriations bills – although lawmakers can plug the measure with money to spend on federal programs. However, reconciliation is inoculated from filibusters. Thus, Republicans don’t need 60 votes. They can – ostensibly – pass a DHS bill on its own without help from Democrats if they hold their narrow coalitions together in both the House and Senate.

Congressional Republicans intend to stuff this reconciliation package with only money for ICE and Customs and Border Patrol. Nothing for disaster aid. Nothing for farmers. Nothing about the SAVE America Act. The president agrees. The goal is to finish this by June 1 – months after the latest DHS funding lapse.

But it’s more complicated than that. 

GOP INFIGHTING REPLACES CLASH WITH DEMS, DERAILS PATH TO END HISTORIC DHS SHUTDOWN

The House and Senate must take a number of steps to approve a shell of a budget resolution in order to have the filibuster-proof reconciliation tool available to them. Republicans undertook a similar endeavor last winter and spring. It was absolutely harrowing and consumed months before finally approving the One, Big, Beautiful Bill, via reconciliation. Republicans don’t have that kind of time now. Then again, DHS has either been unfunded or held together by interim spending bills since last October.

We haven’t even mentioned how Trump is using a somewhat dubious authority to pay TSA workers and others from other funds – without Congressional approval.

That leaves some to question why the administration didn’t do this to start with. But the bigger issue is an alarming pattern of Congress ceding its most precious prerogative – the power of the purse – to the executive branch. That’s to say nothing as to whether Trump’s gambit to pay workers is even Constitutional. And, it establishes a precedent which may be hard to ignore during other funding impasses.

However, here’s the bigger problem: the Congressional paralysis to pass appropriations bills on a timely basis. That’s been an issue for years now.

Historically, Congress has missed the Oct. 1 fiscal deadline, relying on “Continuing Resolutions” (CR’s) which simply renew all funding on a temporary basis. Or, lawmakers cobble together a set of the 12 annual spending bills in a “minibus” appropriations package. Lawmakers who might oppose an individual bill are willing to support a group of bills – because there’s something in there which they like or support.

But turning to reconciliation as a way out of the appropriations box canyon is also another precedent which likely agitates Congressional appropriators. Sure. They’ve done that before. And in this instance, it might finally get DHS funded. But what does this mean for the future?

Which brings us to Oct. 1, 2026. That’s when the federal government pivots from Fiscal Year 2026 to start Fiscal Year 2027. 

Congress has struggled to fund the federal government since early 2025, when it began work on appropriations bills for this year. The FY ’26 funding crisis – which spawned the record-breaking, 43-day, government-wide shutdown in the fall, another partial government shutdown last winter and the current DHS stalemate – has been an issue since lawmakers were working on bills for this cycle around this time LAST spring. So how pray tell is Congress going to avoid a shutdown THIS autumn for FY ’27?

In fact, few are even speaking about that possible peril – because no one can wrap their heads around the present appropriations saga. And it’s possible that this fall’s problems could be worse than last fall’s impasse. The reason? The midterm elections hit in November. It’s doubtful that either side will be willing to make much of a deal right before voters head to the polls.

The scenarios are frightening to fathom, so people are just kind of ignoring them.

SEE IT: LAWMAKERS CAUGHT ON VACATION AMID RECORD-BREAKING SHUTDOWN WHILE DHS WORKERS GO UNPAID

We have entered a new period of semi-perpetual funding standoffs – exacerbated by mistrust between the sides, narrow Congressional margins in both the House and Senate, parliamentary mathematical equations which don’t balance and an unwillingness by Trump to broker deals or even negotiate with Democrats.

Yes. They have options to cover DHS into next year, but it’s the other 11 spending bills which could be problematic.

Imagine trying to pass a defense spending bill which has a price tag 44% higher than the one last year? Or tacks a bunch of money on for the war in Iran?

Where’s the vote combination to approve a CR, let alone an individual bill? Will Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., be willing to help Republicans hit the 60 vote threshold to fund things? Especially if he sees the possibility of emerging again as Majority Leader? Probably not.

And let’s say Democrats win the House, Senate or both in the fall? Do you really think these spending standoffs get better over the final two years of Trump’s term?

Back to Chevy Chase and Clark Griswold. There’s a second part to that iconic quotation from Christmas Vacation: “We’re at the threshold of hell!” he declares.

Pretty funny, but not if you’re trying to keep the government open after the adventures of the past year. This is not hilarious to millions of federal workers who suffer from paycheck PTSD. Another round of spending mayhem could only erode further trust between federal workers and their employers. It will damage morale – which is already subterranean. That’s to say nothing of courting people to work for the government.

Yes. Things can get a lot worse. The political schisms are deep and the vote matrices to pass the bills simply don’t exist.

It may be spring, but the Christmas Vacation movie provides insight into where we stand with the Congressional appropriations bills: “It’s Christmas and we’re all in misery,” declares Ellen Griswold, played by Beverly D’Angelo.

Yeah. And wait to see what Congress has in store for THIS Christmas.