Why we shouldn't let lower fertility rates fuel pronatalist policies
Buried in the Donald Trump administration's recent avalanche of executive orders in the United States was a starkly revealing provision: A Department of Transportation order requiring projects to prioritize federal highway and transit funding to communities with marriage and birth rates higher than the national average. Those with declining birth and marriage rates could face funding cuts.
In my work as a planetary health researcher, I understand the complex dynamics between reproductive rights, population dynamics and environmental sustainability. This new executive order has me worried.
Accounting for demographic trends is indeed fundamental when planning for a country's infrastructure and transportation needs. But this executive order has nothing to do with sound infrastructure planning. Rather, it reflects the Trump administration's ideological shift towards mainstreaming 'pronatalist' policies across sectors far beyond reproductive rights and healthcare.
Pronatalism is a political ideology that seeks to increase birth rates with policies that encourage people to have more children. Pronatalism can be motivated by cultural, religious, geopolitical or economic imperatives.
Pronatalist policies can manifest in many ways. These could range from soft measures (such as stigmatizing those who choose not to have children) to hard measures (such as restricting access to contraception.
The shift towards pronatalist policy is not unique to the United States.
Worldwide, governments are reacting to demographic shifts with alarm, introducing measures to incentivize childbirth. However, these measures fail to acknowledge that the global population is actually still increasing.
For example, Poland and South Korea both offer cash transfers for babies. Russia revived the Stalin-era 'Mother Heroine' award for women who have 10 children in less than 10 years. China has replaced its anti-natalist 'one-child policy' with an aggressive pronatalist regime — clamping down on vasectomies and tracking menstrual cycles.
Until recently, high infant and child mortality rates meant having many children was essential for maintaining stable populations. But advances in healthcare, sanitation and living standards have significantly reduced mortality rates. This has caused a decline in fertility rates which has reshaped the role of reproduction in modern societies.
Yet many countries view this demographic shift with concern. These fears are largely rooted in cultural, economic and political motivations — fuelling a rise in pronatalist policies globally.
But population policies that prioritize demographic targets over reproductive autonomy — a person's power to make their own reproductive choices — have repeatedly led to devastating consequences.
For example, until 1989, Romania's communist dictator Nicolae Ceaușescu enforced strict pronatalist policies. Abortions were banned, contraception was restricted and women were subjected to invasive pregnancy surveillance. Those without children faced punitive taxation. These measures led to a surge in unsafe abortions, high maternal mortality, overcrowded orphanages and lasting social trauma.
Pronatalist policies also seem to go against what most people want. Across cultures and religions, people overwhelmingly seek to control their fertility when given the choice. Research also shows that when women have access to education and contraception, they tend to choose smaller families.
Alarmist narratives about falling fertility rates distract from a more personal reality as well: that half of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended. Pronatalist policies thus appear to go against the advancement of reproductive autonomy.
Pronatalist narratives also undermine efforts to reduce humanity's impact on the environment. Population size and growth are both major drivers of environmental degradation and climate change.
Embracing the lower fertility rates we're seeing could help drive transformative changes needed to ease pressure on natural resources, shrink greenhouse gas emissions and ensure a more sustainable future.
The world's population is expected to grow by an additional two billion people in the coming decades. But we don't actually know how many people the planet can sustainably support. Its carrying capacity is not a fixed measure. It's contingent upon technological advancements, consumption patterns, economic structures and the ever-evolving interactions between humans and the environment.
Some ecological economists have even calculated that in order for everyone to have a reasonable standard of living, a truly sustainable global population would be around around 3.2 billion people. Although these estimates are far from certain, what's clear is that a smaller global population would improve our chances to restore balance.
The fear of population decline and push for pronatalist policies obscures the critical fact that we have yet to address the consequences of the rapid population growth we've experienced since the 1950s. Environmental degradation and climate change have both been driven in large part by this rapid growth.
A major argument pronatalists use is that a shrinking population will lead to economic decline. This reasoning is outdated — rooted in economic models that assume perpetual growth and ignore ever-pressing planetary boundaries. While it's clear that an ageing society presents challenges, lower birth rates don't necessarily mean lower living standards. On the contrary, a smaller population can be conducive to labour productivity and fairer wealth distribution.
The past two centuries of explosive economic and population growth were an anomaly in human history. The idea that we must endlessly expand is a modern fiction — not a historical norm. We're now entering 'the age of depopulation' — a period characterized by lower fertility levels, and, in time, population decline. We must prepare and embrace this shift instead of trying to reverse it.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organisation bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Céline Delacroix, L'Université d'Ottawa/University of Ottawa
Read more:
Trad wives hearken back to an imagined past of white Christian womanhood
Demography and reproductive rights are environmental issues: Insights from sub-Saharan Africa
Fiction about abortion confronts the complicated history of gender, sexuality and women's rights
Céline Delacroix is a Senior Fellow with the Population Institute (USA).

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
19 minutes ago
- The Hill
Van Hollen on Abrego Garcia's return to US: ‘A victory for the Constitution'
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) celebrated the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who was mistakenly deported and detained in El Salvador's CECOT prison, calling it 'a victory' for the rule of law. The Trump administration doubled down on the deportation, accusing Abrego Garcia, who illegally immigrated to the U.S. from El Salvador in 2011 but was later protected from removal to his home country, of having gang ties. His legal team has denied these allegations and urged for his return to the U.S. On Friday, Attorney General Pam Bondi, after months of fighting against Abrego Garcia's return in court, announced that he was transported back to U.S. soil to face criminal charges stemming from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee. 'This is a victory for due process. It's a victory for the Constitution. It should not have taken this long. I mean … the Trump administration dragged its feet for a very long time and ignored a 9 to 0 order from the Supreme Court,' Van Hollen said during a Friday appearance on MSNBC. 'But it's important that Abrego Garcia now come home and have his due process rights upheld in a court of law,' he added. The Maryland lawmaker visited Abrego Garcia while he was detained overseas to check on his well being and champion his release from El Salvadoran custody, which White House officials originally said would never happen. Van Hollen on Friday said that the court battle Abrego Garcia will now face should have been launched prior to his removal. 'If they're now going to take this case into the courts, as they should have, you know, from the beginning, before they just took him off the streets of Maryland and deposited him in a gulag in El Salvador, then that is — that is the due process that we've been fighting for,' he said. 'And, again, not just for his case, but for others. And — and I think that Americans understand that everybody deserves to have their rights, you know, respected. That's what the Constitution is for.' Abrego Garcia's attorney said on Friday that the criminal case is just another attempt to persecute his client. 'This shows that they were playing games with the court all along. Due process means the chance to defend yourself before you're punished, not after. This is an abuse of power, not justice,' attorney Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg previously told The Hill in a statement. 'The government should put him on trial, yes—but in front of the same immigration judge who heard his case in 2019, which is the ordinary manner of doing things, 'to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador,' as the Supreme Court ordered.'
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Stock Market News for Jun 5, 2025
U.S. stocks ended mostly lower on Wednesday after data showed private sector payrolls hit a two-year low, suggesting that a lack of clarity over President Donald Trump's trade policies could weigh on the nation's economy. The S&P ended nearly flat, while the Dow slipped. However, the Nasdaq ended in positive territory. The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJI) slid 0.2% or 91.90 points, to close at 42,427.74 points. The S&P 500 added 0.01% or 0.44 points to finish at 5,970.81 points. Utilities and energy stocks were the worst performers. The Utilities Select Sector SPDR (XLU) fell 1.8%, while the Energy Select Sector SPDR (XLE) declined 2%. The Financials Select Sector SPDR (XLF) lost 0.6%. Six of the 11 sectors of the benchmark index ended in positive territory. The tech-heavy Nasdaq rose 0.3%, or 61.53 points, to end at 19,460.49 points. The fear-gauge CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) was down 0.45% to 17.61. Advancers outnumbered decliners on the NYSE by a 1.3-to-1 ratio. On Nasdaq, a 1.18-to-1 ratio favored advancing issues. A total of 14.5 billion shares were traded on Wednesday, lower than the last 20-session average of 17.8 billion. The Dow snapped its four-day winning streak, while the S&P 500 struggled on Wednesday as disappointing jobs data raised concerns over the economy's health. According to a report from payrolls processing company Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (ADP), the economy added only 37,000 private jobs in May, less than the downwardly revised 60,000 jobs in April and sharply lower than the consensus estimate of 110,000. Trump slammed Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell moments after the figures were out, saying, 'Too Late, Powell,' as he called for immediate interest rate cuts. Investors also focused on trade negotiations between the United States and its trading partners. Trump and the Chinese President are scheduled to talk sometime this week as tensions cease to ease between the world's two biggest economies. The lack of clarity over Trump's upcoming tariff policies has raised concerns among investors. Stocks have rebounded over the past month, and investors are still confident that there will be a positive outcome from the ongoing trade negotiations between the United States and its trading partners. Meanwhile, shares of Tesla, Inc. (TSLA) declined 3.6% after the electric carmaker's sales fell for the fifth straight month in European markets. Also, shares of Dollar Tree, Inc. (DLTR) tumbled 8.4% after the retailer said that its second-quarter adjusted profit could plummet as much as 50% owing to the tariff-fueled volatility. Dollar Tree has a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold). You can see the complete list of today's Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here. In other economic data released on Wednesday, the Institute for Supply Management's (ISM) Services Purchasing Managers Index (PMI) fell to 49.9 in May from April's reading of 51.6. This is the first time the services sector has declined in nearly a year. Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (ADP) : Free Stock Analysis Report Dollar Tree, Inc. (DLTR) : Free Stock Analysis Report Tesla, Inc. (TSLA) : Free Stock Analysis Report This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research ( Zacks Investment Research Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republicans urge Donald Trump and Elon Musk to end their feud
WASHINGTON (AP) — As the Republican Party braces for aftershocks from President Donald Trump's spectacular clash with Elon Musk, lawmakers and conservative figures are urging détente, fearful of the potential consequences from a prolonged feud. At a minimum, the explosion of animosity between the two powerful men could complicate the path forward for Republicans' massive tax and border spending legislation that has been promoted by Trump but assailed by Musk. 'I hope it doesn't distract us from getting the job done that we need to,' said Rep. Dan Newhouse, a Republican from Washington state. "I think that it will boil over and they'll mend fences.' As of Friday afternoon, Musk was holding his fire, posting about his various companies on social media rather than torching the president. Trump departed the White House for his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, without stopping to talk to reporters who shouted questions about his battle with Musk. 'I hope that both of them come back together because when the two of them are working together, we'll get a lot more done for America than when they're at cross purposes,' Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, told Fox News host Sean Hannity on Thursday night. Sen. Mike Lee, a Republican from Utah, sounded almost pained on social media as Trump and Musk volleyed insults at each other, sharing a photo composite of the two men and writing, "But … I really like both of them.' 'Who else really wants @elonmusk and @realDonaldTrump to reconcile?' Lee posted, later adding: 'Repost if you agree that the world is a better place with the Trump-Musk bromance fully intact.' So far, the feud between Trump and Musk is probably best described as a moving target, with plenty of opportunities for escalation or detente. One person familiar with the president's thinking said Musk wants to speak with Trump, but that the president doesn't want to do it – or at least do it on Friday. The person requested anonymity to disclose private matters. In a series of conversations with television anchors Friday morning, Trump showed no interest in burying the hatchet. Asked on ABC News about reports of a potential call between him and Musk, the president responded: 'You mean the man who has lost his mind?' Trump added in the ABC interview that he was 'not particularly' interested in talking to Musk at the moment. Still, others remained hopeful that it all would blow over. 'I grew up playing hockey and there wasn't a single day that we played hockey or basketball or football or baseball, whatever we were playing, where we didn't fight. And then we'd fight, then we'd become friends again,' Hannity said on his show Thursday night. Acknowledging that it 'got personal very quick,' Hannity nonetheless added that the rift was 'just a major policy difference.' House Speaker Mike Johnson projected confidence that the dispute would not affect prospects for the tax and border bill. 'Members are not shaken at all,' the Louisiana Republican said. 'We're going to pass this legislation on our deadline.' He added that he hopes Musk and Trump reconcile, saying 'I believe in redemption' and 'it's good for the party and the country if all that's worked out.' But he also had something of a warning for the billionaire entrepreneur. 'I'll tell you what, do not doubt and do not second-guess and don't ever challenge the president of the United States, Donald Trump,' Johnson said. "He is the leader of the party. He's the most consequential political figure of this generation and probably the modern era.' — Associated Press writers Leah Askarinam and Kevin Freking contributed to this report. Seung Min Kim And Chris Megerian, The Associated Press