Trump sees budget bill promoting a baby boom. Others say more is needed.
-
Ali Martin Staff writer
In America and other developed countries, are prompting concerns that a population decline will cause economic stagnation and drain social welfare systems.
That鈥檚 drawing attention from a cross section of groups raising alarms about population collapse and promoting policies to encourage childbearing. The pro-natalist movement has a foothold in the White House, with President Donald Trump calling for a baby boom, Vice President JD Vance and former adviser Elon Musk championing large families, and administration policy aligning with anti-abortion advocates.
U.S. senators are now Mr. Trump鈥檚 budget bill, which targets a number of family-related issues such as the child tax credit and college financing.
Why We Wrote This
A record-low U.S. birth rate is sparking a movement to encourage people to have more babies. A challenge is unlocking why people are having fewer children than they say they want.
The groups who want Americans to have more babies promote a broad spectrum of reasoning. But there is common concern around a gap between the number of children people want and the number they鈥檙e having. , according to a Gallup survey; but the .
鈥淭he fact that people鈥檚 desires to have kids remain high but that birth rates are falling is evidence that our society is not built in a way that allows people to fulfill their basic desires to have a family,鈥� says Karen Guzzo, director of the Carolina Population Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Many policy experts, including those who say there鈥檚 an urgent need for more babies in the United States, agree that what鈥檚 in the budget bill won鈥檛 do much to boost births. Broader efforts are needed, they say.
The budget bill
The Senate bill would boost the child tax credit 10%, taking it to $2,200. Raising the credit has bipartisan support. The bill also includes $1,000 payments to savings accounts, called 鈥淭rump Accounts,鈥� for children born between 2024 and 2028.
鈥淚鈥檓 glad Congress is committed to raising the [child tax credit] ... but I would like to see them do even more,鈥� said , director of the Pronatalist Initiative at the Institute for Family Studies, which promotes traditional family structures.
The focus on family is something both progressives and conservatives agree on, says , a fellow with the Ethics & Public Policy Center who advocates for policies that encourage more births. He aims to 鈥淸make] it so that family is at the center of what we鈥檙e doing rather than just sort of economizing individuals.鈥�
That includes making it easier for people to get married and start a family, and allowing parents to raise their children 鈥渋n a way that doesn鈥檛 feel so isolating or individualistic,鈥� says Mr. Brown.
The budget, he says, is 鈥渘ot my version of a pro-family agenda.鈥�
It鈥檚 not that experts say financial incentives, along the lines of an expanded child credit, aren鈥檛 helpful and needed for parents. It鈥檚 that financial incentives alone may not be enough. The Republicans鈥� bill also proposes 鈥� including to social welfare programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 鈥� that directly hit the finances of many lower-income families.
And despite spending cuts, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office forecasts Mr. Trump鈥檚 bill will add in debt over the next decade.
鈥淭hey鈥檙e basically trying to cut safety net benefits in order to help cover the cost of your tax cuts for folks [in] the upper-income side of the distribution,鈥� says Mr. Brown.
The budget also makes major cuts to the federal student loan program, and qualifies K-12 expenses, including private school tuition, for pretax savings accounts, which now are limited to college-related costs. The bill included a proposed 鈥渟chool choice鈥� pathway for K-12 education, but that faced a setback Friday when the Senate parliamentarian said it was that violate procedure rules and must be considered separately from the megabill.
The policies are consistent with a by the conservative Heritage Foundation. Heritage declined to talk with the Monitor for this story.
In addition to the budget bill, senators are considering a that would eliminate families鈥� costs for childbirth by requiring health insurers to cover the entire bill. President Trump has meanwhile announced expanded access to . The White House has not released details.
The country鈥檚 population trend is not yet a crisis, says , director of Political Economy at the Catholic University of America鈥檚 Busch School of Business. But it is on a collision course with the government鈥檚 economic commitments. In the short term, she says, policymakers need to try for economic security by balancing the budget 鈥� a task, she says, that is 鈥渘ot remotely easy.鈥�
Big tent, big differences, one aim
People who agree that the U.S. needs more babies can also be at odds. In March, the second annual NatalCon brought together IVF specialists, anti-abortion activists, demographers, and far-right extremists concerned about minority populations outpacing white people.
IVF is a point of contention. Those who consider conception the beginning of life oppose the disposal of embryos, which is a routine part of the IVF process.
Another group, from the tech industry, wants to apply technology to creating babies, including the use of IVF and to screen for intellect or potential health issues.
Serious conversations about the U.S. fertility rate are happening among researchers and pro-childbirth groups who distance themselves from positions linked with racism, sexism, and eugenics.
For instance, policies to encourage more births would result in more births among nonwhite communities, as well, says Mr. Stone. 鈥淎nd we鈥檙e totally fine with that.鈥�
Like Mr. Stone鈥檚 organization, many who support a higher birth rate also promote the idea that traditional families 鈥� married heterosexual couples with children 鈥� are ideal.
That ideal does not require a woman to give up on education or a meaningful career, says Mr. Brown. Women should be able to 鈥渆xercise their talents in the same way that men can,鈥� he says. 鈥淭he way out of this trap that we鈥檙e in is by reorienting our economy, accommodating all people having family and work life, rather than pitting men against women.鈥�
But there are concerns that focusing on fertility could further limit women鈥檚 reproductive options. The 2022 Supreme Court reversed federal recognition of a right to abortion when it overturned Roe v. Wade; since then, more than half of U.S. states have increased restrictions on the practice.
Any strategy aimed at fertility will ultimately sideline reproductive options, says , who studies fertility policies as a demographer and public health researcher with the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 鈥淲e just have decades and decades and decades of evidence that this is the case.鈥�
People are 鈥渂alancing competing goods鈥�
A collection of studies indicates anxieties about the cost of living, career pursuits, the housing shortage, and a breakdown in community supports are contributing to slowing birth rates. America鈥檚 birth rate is below the global average.
One shows nearly two-thirds of adults believe free child care would encourage more people to have children; half say paid family leave and more tax credits for parents would help, and 45% say a monthly stipend would do it.
Mr. Brown and Mr. Stone, whose work often intersects, both link the fertility rate to a decline in the marriage rate. shows one-third of adults who never had children said it was because they didn鈥檛 find the right partners. Twelve percent said it was because they couldn鈥檛 afford it.
Education matters, too. Mr. Brown says the U.S. should take notes from European models of higher education, which take fewer years for professionals who require graduate-level schooling. That means a person can get an earlier start on their career and family, he says.
But most European countries have even lower fertility rates than the U.S., including , which Americans generally laud for their family-centered policies and institutions.
People are having fewer children because that鈥檚 what they really prefer, says Dr. Pakaluk, whose book 鈥淗annah鈥檚 Children: The Women Quietly Defying the Birth Dearth鈥� explores why some women choose to have more children than others.
鈥淢ost people are doing a thing where they鈥檙e balancing competing goods in their lives,鈥� she says.
Children today are a want, not a need, she adds, and the best way to influence values is with information campaigns 鈥� for example, stories from communities that desire more children about what it鈥檚 like to be a parent.
鈥淏ecause information is the single most powerful changer of people鈥檚 choices,鈥� she adds.
, a demographer at the University of Colorado Boulder who leads the Colorado Fertility Project, says population shifts don鈥檛 need to cause alarm.
Politics and demographics are constantly influencing each other, and population is always changing, she says. Other parts of society are in flux, such as where people live and who cares for children and older adults, and people will find infinite ways to respond to population changes.
鈥淲e need to work on this together,鈥� says Professor Stevenson. 鈥淲e will respond in other ways, and it won鈥檛 just be the escalation of this [population] panic.鈥�
Dr. Guzzo points out that birth rates are down, but the population in the U.S. and the world is still growing.
鈥淧opulation collapse is not imminent,鈥� says Dr. Guzzo. The number of people in the U.S. is expected to grow until about 2080, then plateau or decline 鈥渟uper slowly over time.鈥� Beyond that, she says, assumptions lose hold.
The number and types of jobs, for instance, will change as artificial intelligence replaces people in the workplace.
鈥淲e can鈥檛 predict a whole lot of things because humans are remarkably resilient and inventive,鈥� she says.
