White House Explores Measures to Boost U.S. Birth Rates

Amid ongoing concerns about declining birth rates in the United States, which have steadily diminished since 2007, White House aides have recently engaged in discussions with various policy experts and advocates advocating for pro-natalist strategies. This initiative comes on the heels of a report by The New York Times detailing these efforts.

Proposals Under Consideration

Prominent among the discussions are proposals from Simone and Malcolm Collins, founders of Pronatalist.org, who have suggested several draft executive orders to the White House. These include:

• A “National Medal of Motherhood” for women who have six or more children—a concept that has historical ties to various totalitarian regimes.
• Reserving 30% of Fulbright scholarships for individuals who are married or have children.
• A $5,000 “baby bonus” for families welcoming a new baby.
• Funding educational programs focused on menstrual health that promote natural family planning rather than comprehensive sex education.

Critics have noted that the emphasis on such programs shifts focus away from providing education on contraception and sexual health. Jessica Valenti, in her Substack newsletter, remarked, “Just so we’re clear: Instead of teaching kids about birth control and sexual health, the government would fund programs that teach little girls how to get pregnant.”

The Political Landscape

Efforts to promote higher birth rates have roots in past rhetoric from political figures, including Vice President JD Vance. His comments have stirred controversy, particularly his assertion that individuals without biological children have less of a stake in the country’s future. During a past campaign, he claimed that the government should “punish the things that we think are bad” in relation to childbearing.

Funding vs. Policy: A Disconnect?

Despite the government’s pronatalist initiatives, critics point to a lack of solid policies that truly support families after children are born. For instance, proposals to legislate paid family leave have faced skepticism within the Republican Party. A memo from the Michigan Republican Party characterized such legislation as a “ridiculous idea,” while previous efforts to expand eligibility for the child tax credit have been blocked.

Furthermore, echoes of these inconsistencies are apparent in President Trump’s proposed budget, which aims to cut federal funding for programs like Head Start, effectively removing early childhood education support that has benefited millions of children over the decades.

What Families Really Need

Ellen Galinsky, president of the Families and Work Institute, highlights that merely encouraging childbirth without addressing the holistic needs of families post-birth is insufficient. “You have to think about what happens to those children after they’re born,” she stated, emphasizing that successful countries often provide family allowances, parental leave, and support systems that assist working parents.

Conclusions

As the dialogue around pro-natalist measures continues, it brings to the forefront the essential question: What measures will genuinely enhance the well-being of families and children in the U.S.? Critics argue that without substantial support for child-rearing and recent cuts to critical services, proposals designed to increase birth rates may fall short of effectively improving conditions for American families.