As the U.S. fertility rate continues to decline, the Trump administration has launched a series of policy initiatives aimed at encouraging Americans to have more children. Measures include $1,000 “baby bonuses”, discounted infertility drugs, and proposals to expand fertility benefits for employees.
However, critics argue these incentives do little to address the broader challenges faced by American families. Programs that support women and children, such as Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, Head Start, and Planned Parenthood, have faced budget cuts, work requirements, and funding freezes. Experts say these actions undermine reproductive rights, health access, and the ability of parents—especially mothers—to participate fully in the workforce.
For example, new Medicaid work requirements could leave millions of eligible Americans without coverage, even though Medicaid finances over 40% of U.S. births. Funding cuts to federal nutrition programs and childcare initiatives further exacerbate financial pressure on families. Planned Parenthood, which provides critical healthcare including prenatal care, wellness exams, and cancer screenings, lost a year of Medicaid funding, forcing roughly 50 clinics to close nationwide.
Some reproductive rights advocates view the pronatalist push as part of a conservative agenda targeting women’s reproductive freedom. “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 of Population Connection.
Under the administration’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the federal government will automatically open tax-advantaged “Trump Accounts” for children born between 2025 and 2028, seeded with $1,000. Parents may contribute up to $5,000 annually, with employers allowed to add up to $2,500, though funds cannot be accessed until the child reaches 18.
Vice President JD Vance and other administration officials have openly embraced pronatalism, encouraging higher birth rates while emphasizing traditional family structures. In parallel, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has directed federal funds toward communities with high marriage and birth rates, and initiatives like discounts on IVF medications have been launched.
Experts, however, caution that such policies are unlikely to reverse the declining birth rate. Countries with robust pro-natalist measures, including Israel, France, and Sweden, have not seen significant increases in fertility despite extensive support programs. Some analysts argue that boosting immigration would be a more effective way to maintain a young workforce and tax base, but the administration has pursued stricter immigration policies.
Meanwhile, young Americans like Maddy Olcott, a 20-year-old student in New York, remain skeptical. “A $1,000 baby bonus? That wouldn’t even cover my month’s rent,” she said, pointing out that rising housing and childcare costs, combined with reduced support programs, make parenthood financially daunting.
Advocates argue that the administration’s pronatalist rhetoric fails to match policies that truly support families, instead prioritizing conservative cultural objectives over practical solutions for reproductive health, childcare, and economic security.
