Pronatalism in the US

Pronatalism is an ideology that is on the rise in the US. Up until recently, Pronatalist discussion has been confined largely to the right-wing political sphere but in recent years the venues for that discussion has shifted. We are now hearing pronatalist discussions taking place on Capital Hill and in the White House. The rise of the new pronatalist movement in the US has transitioned from being a niche tech-industry anxiety to a pillar of federal policy between the early 2020’s and late 2025.

The New Pro-Birth Movement

This movement began to gain traction in the early 2020’s. It would come to be driven by an odd coalition of wealthy tech elites, venture capitalists, and religious fundamentalists. Advocates of pro-natal policy have become increasingly concerned with what they claim is “global demographic collapse” (Science Vs, 2025). Some early proponents of the movement include figures like Elon Musk, who has been a consistent ally to the movement. Musk has made many claims about falling birthrates. In a 2022 post on the website X (formerly known as Twitter) Musk said that, “Population collapse due to low birth rates is a much bigger risk to civilization than global warming” (Musk, 2022). More recently, Musk claimed in an interview on Fox News that, “"The birth rate is very low in almost every country. And so unless that changes, civilization will disappear" (Hagen, 2025). The movement has since moved beyond the anxious ramblings of just a few technocrats. By mid-2023, media outlets began profiling pronatalist couples, who were mainly wealthy elites. In particular, news outlets tended to highlight the far-right founders of pronatalist.org, Malcolm and Simone Collins (Black, 2022; Dodds, 2023).  These couples pushed the narrative that childbearing was a civilizational duty. 

In December of 2023, the first Natal Conference was held in Austin, Texas (Wilson, 2023). This cemented a growing coalition of tech figures, traditionalists, and controversial pro-birth advocates. Perhaps due to its proximity to Elon Musk, this movement did not go unnoticed by Donald Trump. While campaigning to become the 47th President of the United States, Trump declared, “We will support baby booms, and we will support baby bonuses for a new baby boom. How does that sound? That sounds pretty good. I want a baby boom. You men are so lucky out there. You're so lucky.” Vice President JD Vance would also align himself with the pronatalism movement stating in his first speech as VP his desire for “more babies in the United States of America” (Population Connection, 2025). The movement’s critics are quick to note the movement’s policy goals rarely align with established best practices for increasing birthrates, such as addressing material concerns around childcare and allowing families who want more children the economic security to pursue larger families. Instead, some right-wing framing links pronatalism with ethnonationalism, expressing concern that “white American babies” are being replaced due to immigration and falling domestic birth rates (Population Connection, 2025; Science Vs, 2025).

Framing of the Problem

Proponents claim that America’s falling birth rates, which reached a record low of 1.62 births per couple in 2023, are an existential crisis. Current estimates by the Congressional Budget Office (2025) expect deaths to outpace births and immigration to the US by the mid-2030’s. In CBO’s projections, the total fertility rate equals 1.62 births per woman in 2025, 1.60 in 2035, and 1.60 in 2055. This is indeed a serious issue.  Half of the global population lives in countries where the total fertility rate (TFR) is lower than the replacement levels of 2.1. Low TFR is a particular issue in South Korea, which hit a record low in 2024 of 0.75. Advocates for pro-natal policies highlight South Korea as an example of what can go terribly wrong when birthrates fall. In particular, South Korea has an aging population, of which many live in abject poverty (Jeong-yoon, 2025). Not only do the demographic shifts in South Korea create more elderly but the lack of children has created “child deserts” where children are hardly seen in public life. In 2022, it was reported that there were over 400 schools in South Korea that had to close due to low enrollment, mainly in rural areas (Han-na, 2022). According to an article by Gideon Lewis-Kraus, (2025) in the New Yorker, in 2023 it was reported that 157 elementary schools had no new enrollees scheduled for that year. South Korea is facing real hurdles due to their declining birthrates. Higher numbers of elderly people combined with low birth rates creates a shrinking workforce and a greater number of elderly dependents that current economic systems cannot sustain (Rahman et al., 2025). 

Critics on the other hand, have issues not only with the framing of the discussion but also the policy solutions put forward by the pronatalist coalition. They claim that these policies are not only coercive but ineffective. For instance, when Donald Trump signed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” into law on July 4th 2025, it established the ability for parents to create “$1000 Trump Accounts.” These accounts are tax-advantaged savings accounts provided for all new babies who are US citizens. The same bill explicitly deprived Planned Parenthood and its member clinics of Medicaid funding. This move will likely reduce access to reproductive health services, such as abortion, to low-income Americans. While this is likely to increase TFR, it’s also likely to increase rates of poverty. The most notable historical example of this occurred in Romania in 1966, when leaders severely restricted access to abortions and contraceptives. The TFR jumped dramatically from 1.93 in 1966 to 3.69 in 1967. Yet, this increase was short-lived, by 1970, the fertility rate had fallen below 3 and the country never achieved its long-term population targets. This was partly due to the increased levels of maternal mortality that came as a result of these bans. The bans led to Romania having the highest levels of maternal mortality in Europe, with 87% of the increased deaths attributable to unsafe illegal abortions. 

This level of erosion in reproductive healthcare can trigger unintended consequences such as increased numbers of permanent sterilization in child-bearing aged couples and distrust in institutions. Increased levels of sterilization can be due to chosen procedures, such as vasectomies and tubal ligations, or due to poorly performed abortions (UNFPA, 2025). While abortion bans may achieve quick results in boosting TFR, the effect is crude. It is clear to demographers that it is ineffective for sustainable population growth and devastating to public health outcomes (UNFPA, 2019; 2025).

Proposed Policies

Pronatalist policy proposals range from direct financial incentives and work-life reconciliation measures to symbolic rewards and coercive restrictions on reproductive health. While many of these policies achieve short-term shifts in birth timing, demographic research suggests that long-term increases in TFR is only sustainable through comprehensive social support and the reduction of structural barriers.

Current Pronatlist Coalition Policies

The pronatalist movement relies heavily on short-term solutions to address low TFR. Four policies promoted by the coalition have already been implemented. The first is the establishment of tax-advantaged investment accounts provided for all new babies born between 2025 and 2028 who are US citizens. Essentially this is a form of tax rebate that is automatically invested in the US stock market that parents can choose to invest an additional $5,000 per year into (Trump Accounts, 2025). The second is reducing access to reproductive health services. This is accomplished through cuts to Medicaid as well as the overturning of Roe v Wade (Totenberg & McCammon, 2022). Additionally, Trump’s administration has also removed reproductive rights and contraceptive guidance from government websites in his second term, diverted Title X family planning funds to “infertility training centers,” and ordered the destruction of $10 million worth of contraceptives (Population Connection, 2025). Finally, Donald Trump signed an executive order February of 2025 calling for policy proposals to help expand access to in vitro fertilization (IVF). In December of 2025, Trump signed a deal with the drug company Merck to lower the cost of its IVF medications. The deal allows for these discounted drugs to be sold on the new government website TrumpRX as of 2026 (Population Connection, 2025).

What Works to Increase TFR?

What’s most confounding about these policies from the pronatalist coalition is that there are policies that have been used to effectively and safely increase birth rates in other countries. Subsidized childcare is consistently identified as one of the most effective measures for increasing TFR. A meta-analysis by Bergsvik et al. (2021) showed that in Belgium, increasing childcare slots by just 1% led to a 10.8% increase in first birth odds. That same analysis found that in Norway, rapid expansion of high-quality childcare was found to increase the number of couples who had second and third children. Comprehensive packages have been shown to consistently outperform single measures like one-time cash payments. Countries like Sweden and France have been able to maintain higher fertility rates by implementing long-term policy changes that address structural issues (UNFPA, 2023; 2025). These packages combine generous leave for mothers, and even fathers, with affordable childcare. 

A major limitation for states looking to implement policies that increase the TFR is that they need to be both cultural and economic. Policies often fail to address underlying issues such as high costs of living and housing, career and social-related barriers for women, and demanding work cultures (Maravilla & Tan, 2025). In South Korea and Japan, birth rates remain low despite massive investments because the policies haven’t mitigated extreme work pressures and traditional gender role expectations (UNFPA, 2023). These realities send a clear message to policymakers who would like to see increases in TFR. Effective policy is not a transaction; it is an environment. To truly support reproductive agency, states must move away from confounding, narrow mandates and toward comprehensive packages that respect the economic, social, and professional realities of modern life.