Trump wants more [White] babies. His policies make it harder.

Maddy Olcott plans to start a career once she graduates from college. But the junior at the State University of New York-Purchase College is so far not planning to start a family — even with the Trump administration dangling inducements like thousand-dollar “baby bonuses” or cheaper infertility drugs.

“Our country wants us to be birthing machines, but they’re cutting what resources there already are,” said Olcott, 20. “And a $1,000 baby bonus? It’s low-key like, what, bro? That wouldn’t even cover my month’s rent.”

The Trump administration wants Americans to have more babies, and the federal government is debuting policy initiatives to reverse the falling U.S. fertility rate. In mid-October, the White House unveiled a plan to increase access to in vitro fertilization treatment. President Donald Trump has heralded such initiatives, calling himself “the fertilization president.”

But reproductive rights groups and other advocacy organizations say these efforts to buttress the birth rate don’t make up for broader administration priorities aimed at cutting federal programs such as Medicaid, its related Children’s Health Insurance Program, and other initiatives that support women and children.

The pro-family focus, they say, isn’t just about boosting procreation. Instead, they say, it’s being weaponized to push a conservative agenda that threatens women’s health, reproductive rights, and labor force participation.

Some predict these efforts could deter parenthood and lead to increases in maternal mortality.

“The religious right wants more white Christian babies and is trying to curtail women’s reproductive freedom in order to achieve that aim,” said Marian Starkey, a spokesperson for Population Connection, a nonprofit that promotes population stabilization through increased access to birth control and abortion. “The real danger is the constant whittling down of reproductive rights.”

The White House did not respond to repeated interview requests.

A slate of federal programs that have long helped women and children are also being targeted by Trump and Cabinet members who say they champion pronatalist policies.

Medicaid work requirements, for instance, put in place by the Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a budget law enacted in July, will lead to extra paperwork and other requirements that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will cause millions of eligible enrollees to lose coverage. Medicaid covers more than 4 in 10 births in the U.S.

The measure also cuts federal funding for a national program that provides monthly food benefits. Almost 40% of recipients in fiscal 2023 were children.

GOP spending cuts and staffing freezes have hampered Head Start, a federal education program that provides day care and preschool for young, low-income children, even as U.S. adults implore the government to curtail ballooning child care costs.

And the GOP halted Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood of America for one year because it provides abortion services, forcing roughly 50 clinics around the country to close since the beginning of 2025. Planned Parenthood provides a wide range of women’s health services, from wellness exams to breast cancer screenings and initial prenatal care.

Groups that advocate for women’s health and reproductive rights say the actions by the administration and congressional Republicans to attack these programs are making it harder for families to get the support and medical care they need.

“There is a lot of rhetoric about who is worthy of public assistance, and to many policymakers, it’s not the single mother,” said Allyson Crays, a public health law and policy analyst at the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University.

The pronatalist perspective generally supports government intervention to encourage procreation and is rooted in a belief that modern culture has failed to celebrate the nuclear family. The movement’s supporters also say policies to encourage childbearing are an economic necessity.

A Declining Birth Rate

The national birth rate has largely been on a downward trajectory since 2007, with the number of births declining by an average 2% per year from 2015 through 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, although the rate has fluctuated since.

The concepts that shape the movement can be found in Project 2025, a political initiative led by the conservative Heritage Foundation that has seen many of its proposals adopted by Trump. The document asserts that children fare best in a “heterosexual, intact marriage.”

“Married men and women are the ideal, natural family structure because all children have a right to be raised by the men and women who conceived them,” it says.

Project 2025 also includes many proposals that critics say aren’t friendly toward women’s health. For instance, it calls for eliminating access to mifepristone, a drug commonly used in abortions as well as in the management of miscarriages, and encourages states to block Planned Parenthood facilities from receiving Medicaid funding.

The “more babies” mantra is being embraced at the highest levels of the federal government.

“I can’t remember any other administration being so tied to the pronatalist movement,” said Brian Dixon, Population Connection’s senior vice president for government and political affairs.

Just days after he was sworn in, Vice President JD Vance declared, “I want more babies in the United States of America.” He has also criticized the decision-making of women and men who opt not to start families.

The White House in October did announce a discount on certain drugs used in IVF treatments through TrumpRx, a yet-to-debut government website that aims to connect consumers with lower-priced drugs. Mehmet Oz, who heads Medicare and Medicaid, heralded a possible future of “Trump babies,” resulting from the lower-priced infertility drugs.

The administration also announced it would encourage employers to move to a new model for offering fertility benefits as a stand-alone option in which employees can enroll. But that is far from Trump’s earlier pledge to make infertility treatments free and may not be enough to overcome other long-term financial worries that often guide decisions about whether to have children.

Angel Albring, a mother of six, says her dream of having a big family always hinged on her ability to work and avoid child care costs. Her career as a freelance writer enabled her to do so while still contributing to the family’s income, working during nap times and at night, while the rest of her household slept.

“The whole thing of ‘sleep when the baby sleeps’ never applied to me,” Albring said.

Some of her friends, though, aren’t so fortunate. They fear they cannot afford children because of climbing costs for day care, groceries, and housing, she said.

Delivering on ‘Baby Bonuses’?

The Trump administration, meanwhile, has advanced another policy aimed at giving children a future financial boost.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act establishes a tax-advantaged “Trump account” seeded with $1,000 in federal funds — often called a “baby bonus” — on behalf of every eligible American child. The initial deposits are scheduled to start in 2026 with the federal government automatically opening an account for children born after Dec. 31, 2024, and before Jan. 1, 2029.

Parents could contribute up to $5,000 a year initially to the account, with employers able to annually contribute up to $2,500 of that amount. The accounts reportedly would be vehicles for long-term savings. Details are still being ironed out, but funds could not be withdrawn before the child turns 18. After that, the accounts would likely become traditional IRAs.

On Tuesday, billionaires Michael and Susan Dell of Dell computer fame said they would give $250 to 25 million children age 10 and under in the U.S. The donations will be aimed at encouraging participation in the Trump accounts.

Pronatalism extends to other parts of the federal government, too.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, who has nine children, instructed his department to prioritize federal funds for communities with high marriage and birth rates, though it has not yet announced any projects directly related to the initiative. For a time, the administration considered bestowing national medals on mothers with six or more children.

Except there’s one hitch: Data suggests the policies and programs the Trump administration has proposed won’t necessarily work.

Other countries have offered more robust programs to encourage childbearing and ease parenting but haven’t seen their birth rates go up, noted Michael Geruso, an economist for the University of Texas-Austin who hopes to see the global population increase. Israel, for example, has offered free IVF treatment for roughly three decades, yet its birth rates have stayed statistically stagnant, at just under three children for every woman, he said.

France and Sweden have extensive social safety-net programs to support families, including paid time off and paid paternity and maternity leave, and subsidized child care and health care, but their fertility rates are also falling, said Peggy O’Donnell Heffington, a University of Chicago assistant senior instructional professor in the history department who wrote a book on non-motherhood.

“Nobody yet knows how to avoid depopulation,” Geruso said.

Some point to a different solution to reverse the United States’ declining population: boost immigration to ensure a younger labor force and stronger tax base. The Trump administration, however, is doing the opposite — revoking visas and creating an environment in which immigrants who are in the U.S. legally feel increasingly uncomfortable because of heavy-handed policies, analysts say.

The country’s immigrant population this year fell for the first time since the 1960s, according to a Pew Research Center analysis.

Meanwhile, to critics of the administration, the focus on encouraging childbirth allows the Trump administration and Republicans to sound as if they support families.

“You’re not seeing policies that support families with children,” said Amy Matsui, vice president of income security and child care at the National Women’s Law Center, a nonprofit focused on gender rights. “It’s a white, heterosexual, fundamentalist Christian, two-parent marriage that’s being held up.”

Editor’s Thoughts

I’d like you, dear reader, to take a moment to close your eyes and imagine how different America might look if men could get pregnant.

Following the birth of a child in this version of our country, partners sometimes leave and refuse to participate or contribute financially in the life of their child. Their partner is forced into a difficult 18-year-long commitment that affects them mentally, emotionally, and financially. And they’ll do it without assistance.

Can anyone honestly say that in this version of America, abortion bans and restrictions would still exist? Of course not! There are abortion pill “ATMs” and 24/7 walk-in clinics and drive-thru locations so men can easily access abortion services at all times. In addition, abortions, healthcare, childcare, and college are free.

Screaming hypocracies

If a doctor tells an expectant father that he “is going to die if he carries the pregnancy to term,” do you think men in power will still say, “NO EXCEPTIONS!”

If a man is raped by a dirty, smelly, scary homeless person while walking home one night, and ends up pregnant with the rapist’s baby, would the men in power still say, “NO EXCEPTIONS!”

No offense to anyone who’s unhoused, I’m just describing the imaginary rapist as I’ve heard conservative men talk about the unhoused in real life—I’m looking at you, Jesse Watters.

If a father’s 10-year-old son is raped by an uncle…

You get my point.

Finally, Republicans are currently pushing us to have more babies while banning access to reproductive healthcare. At the same time, they’re kicking people off health insurance and defunding Planned Parenthood, which has clinic located throughout the country. Planned Parenthood is one of the only trusted healthcare providers for low-income women without insurance to get prenatal, OBGYN, postnatal, and “NOnatal” health services.

Childcare is more expensive, the American dream is dead, Americans can no longer get married, buy a home, and start a family (the average age of first-time homebuyers in 2025 is 40! A little late in life to start having babies.), the wealth gap is widening, and income inequality is getting worse. People are living paycheck to paycheck and paying for necessities with credit. People can’t afford food as the government is cutting SNAP benefits.

How to make it make sense

Can someone please explain how they expect us to have more babies in this country? I won’t even begin to discuss the ways in which global warming impacts the decision to bring a child into the world, knowing they’ll suffer the consequences of our inaction.

We have one VERY EFFECTIVE option that’s proven to be 99% effective in other countries (although more difficult in a country as large as ours with populations so spread out). We must start by ignoring culture wars meant to divide us and begin to see people on the “other side” as our neighbors and fellow Americans again. We also need to stop dividing people based on race, sexuality, or political ideology. Instead of grouping Americans using labels, we MUST think of ourselves as members of one of two CLASSES: the elites and the working class. It’s people in power, the oligarchs, and the billionaires, who are preventing the working class from uniting. I don’t have to tell you that there are SO MANY more of us than there are of them.

In “Don’t Look Up” I talked about how the 1% uses culture wars and other methods of distraction to stoke the anger and fear inside some of us. At the same time, they spew lies and propaganda meant to turn members of a different political party, race, ethnicity, gender, or sexuality into the ENEMY that must be defeated before they destroy America.

Because, if we don’t “fight like hell,” we “won’t have a country anymore.”

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.