The American conservative movement has traditionally championed the nuclear family as the cornerstone of society, intertwining it with both cultural and economic life. However, there’s been a recent shift with conservatives aiming to expand the size of families, making them larger. This change comes against a backdrop of declining fertility rates, prompting a “pronatalist” faction on the right to advocate for policies that encourage increased childbearing. With the re-election of President Trump, this group seems to have moved closer to the center of influence.
In essence, their agenda includes providing more support for large families, offering faster and more affordable education opportunities so people can start families sooner, assisting those who face challenges in conceiving, and promoting childbearing as a patriotic duty.
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, a father of nine, exemplifies these ideas. He has allocated federal funds towards areas characterized by high marriage and birth rates, aligning with the movement’s agenda.
Despite these efforts, the implementation of their priorities has been somewhat sluggish. Some in the pronatalist camp perceive certain actions by the White House as counterproductive.
Patrick Brown from the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center notes the complexity in the movement’s progress, explaining, “It’s a bit of a balancing act—they’re struggling with competing influences at the moment.”
With the administration focused on delivering Trump’s campaign promises, including mass deportations, tariffs, and cutting down government size, family policy has taken a backseat. The pronatalist movement remains hopeful and patient, though it acknowledges the lack of a unified message. Different voices within the movement interpret “natalism” in varied ways.
Vice President JD Vance has criticized those without children, promoting the idea of having “more babies in the United States,” as stated at a Right to Life March. Meanwhile, Elon Musk, a key ally of Trump, has fathered numerous children, driven by his belief in the threat of depopulation—actively discussing “population collapse” on his social media platform.
While Vance and Musk may appear to be on the same page, they actually represent different, often conflicting, segments of the pronatalist movement.
Vance’s approach, steeped in religious values and reinforced by some conservative think tanks, emphasizes the family as society’s foundational unit. “Families are the key to our civilization, and without them, we lose our national identity,” Vance stated in 2021. His group values not just the quantity of children but also the structure of families, often opposing measures like transgender rights, certain reproductive technologies, or arrangements like single-parent or same-sex parenting.
Roger Severino from the Heritage Foundation argues against commoditizing babies, suggesting that while Musk’s perspective lacks a focus on family stability, Vance’s emphasizes it. Although opposed to abortion, Vance’s faction believes more financial support should accompany the tighter restrictions on reproductive rights.
On the flip side, the Musk-aligned faction fears low birthrates will stymie economic growth, as a shrinking workforce struggles to support an aging population. They argue against using immigration as a solution, viewing it as potentially dilutional to national culture.
People like Malcolm and Simone Collins, advocates for assisted reproduction, align more with Musk. They even employ genetic selection for their children, a stance Christian groups generally contest. The Collinses have compiled a set of executive policy suggestions, such as deregulating child care to reduce costs and revising car-seat laws to make larger families more feasible.
Although Vance and Musk didn’t comment on their stances, the White House maintains interest in supportive policies. Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson, emphasized the administration’s efforts to boost family formation and support.
However, the pronatalist movement lacks a unified front, with no singular group or coordinated platform holding politicians accountable to promises made.
To address low birthrates, pronatalists support initiatives like tax policy adjustments and benefit program reforms to favor families. They push for a more generous child tax credit and propose a “baby bonus,” though they’re less supportive of child care subsidies which don’t benefit stay-at-home parents.
Leah Libresco Sargeant, from the Niskanen Center, works on getting more financial resources to families. She believes that increasing the child tax credit could validate Republicans’ pro-family stance, aligning with conservative voter preferences.
Yet, when designing federal policies, pronatalists face a challenge: historical evidence suggests that financial incentives alone haven’t significantly boosted birthrates in low-fertility nations like Japan and Norway. Countries that have managed more success, like Hungary, implemented much bolder policies than what seems feasible in the U.S.
Democrats also back many of these family-supportive measures, not necessarily to encourage reproduction. Nonetheless, families continue migrating away from policy-rich blue states. Attempts to bridge ideological divides on family policy often falter due to core ideological differences.
Vicki Shabo from the New America Foundation highlights theoretical consensus on family support but notes persistent disagreements on the role of government in providing such aid.
Recognizing the complexity of addressing birthrates, some suggest the focus should be on cultural shifts. Israel, with a fertility rate of 2.9 children per woman, blends nationalism and religiosity—factors hard to duplicate elsewhere.
Efforts to boost family sizes worry some groups, fearing authoritarian tactics or arguing the impact of a declining population isn’t as dire as claimed. Many young people today are also concerned with the environmental implications of having children.
Still, pronatalists propose the administration forms a commission to prioritize family formation. This could echo past efforts by screening policies for their procreation impact, much like evaluations for climate change and equity.
Tim Carney of the American Enterprise Institute advocates for taking actions that assess the impact of policy on family dynamics. He, along with others, would appreciate seeing more initiatives akin to those from the Transportation Department extended to other sectors.
Amid these debates, the broader effects of Trump’s policy directions remain mixed when it comes to fostering larger families. Some argue that across-the-board government cuts erode resources that could be channeled towards reproductive support.
Elon Musk’s return-to-office mandates, limiting telework, is another point of contention. Daniel Hess, a father of six, argues that telework should be embraced for its family-friendly nature.
Concerns loom over immigration policies too, as deporting many low-cost workers could hurt family support systems. Lyman Stone, leading the Pronatalism Initiative, warns that reducing immigration could ironically decrease birthrates.
Financial factors exacerbated by economic instability and tariff policies could deter families from expanding, as Catherine Pakaluk from Catholic University suggests. She believes that while intentions might target higher birthrates, outcomes influenced by economic costs might not align.
Pakaluk argues that imposing additional costs won’t support larger families and emphasizes that fertility decisions should be personal rather than politically driven.
