Donald Trump Has a Family Policy. Stop Laughing.
The Trump administration marries insane ideas to gross, bullying tactics. But even when this administration stumbles upon an idea that is not deranged, illegal, or immoral, it has the capacity to do great harm. I'm thinking of the apparent plans to encourage marriage and motherhood. The administration is reportedly considering proposals to award mothers $5,000 'baby bonuses,' to reserve 30 percent of Fulbright scholarships to parents, to reduce the costs of IVF (not clear how), and to fund programs to educate women about ovulation cycles (I kid you not).
I've been promoting marriage for decades, not as part of a religious agenda but as the result of studying the social-science literature demonstrating that marriage makes adults happier than non-marriage and that stable, two-parent homes are the best environment for raising children, building thriving neighborhoods, and reducing crime, homelessness, and substance abuse.
Join the best pro-democracy community on the internet and help us grow. Become a Bulwark+ member today.
The Trump administration cannot adopt this message without turning it rancid. If you hope to persuade people, you must start by showing good faith—that your intentions for them are good. This crowd has displayed open contempt for women—at least those women who vote for the other party or otherwise assert their individuality. In light of the president's apparent requirement that any nominee for a major cabinet role have at least one serious accusation of sexual misconduct, the vice president's sneers about 'childless cat ladies' seem mild. Matt Gaetz, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Pete Hegseth, and Linda McMahon all trailed accusations that would have been disqualifying in any other administration. (Only Gaetz was undone.)
But then, the thrice-married, adulterous president himself has been found legally liable for sexual assault in the E. Jean Carroll case, and has been accused of similar behavior half a dozen or so times by other women. What that may mean is that Trump must convince himself and others that accusations of sexual misconduct are always and everywhere 'fake news.' Also, he just doesn't give a damn. Trump has endorsed and campaigned with alleged sexual predators ranging from Roy Moore to Herschel Walker, and one of his first acts as president in the second term was to effectuate the release of Andrew and Tristan Tate from custody in Romania on rape and human trafficking charges. (So they can effectuate releases from foreign countries.)
The Trump crowd's approach to fertility is not the joy of parenthood or the warmth of close families. It's more like the 'Great Replacement' theory made flesh. Give them credit for honesty, I guess. They don't really claim to be speaking up for family values. Instead, as Elon Musk admits, he wants a 'legion' of offspring 'before the apocalypse' and is creating a harem to achieve it. He is married, but also father to at least fourteen children by four different women and willing to outsource his semen upon request. 'No romance or anything,' he explained to one baby mama, 'just sperm.'
It's remarkable to consider that Musk is a pinup for the GOP these days. I well remember the party of 'family values.' Musk is the most famous progenitor of illegitimacy in the world. (William J. Bennett, call your office.)
THE TRUMP CROWD WORRIES about America's declining fertility rate and yet treats immigration as a mortal threat. So when they encourage childbearing, the not-so-veiled subtext is that they want not more babies but more white babies. Perhaps they will begin awarding 'Mother Heroine' honors as the Soviet Union did, or the 'Cross of Honor' with which Nazi Germany rewarded fecundity.
You don't convince women in a free country to have more babies for the sake of the fatherland. If you want to encourage family formation and increase the birth rate, you can't treat women as breeder mares. It helps to model good behavior. That includes being good husbands who don't cheat on their wives, good fathers who actually live with their kids, and good parents who don't commit or condone adultery.
Baby bonuses have been tried in other countries with poor results. Hungary has adopted a suite of policies to support families that are far more generous than what the Trump administration is considering, but the results have been disappointing. Singapore, South Korea, and Russia have seen similar results. Subsidies for babies don't seem to budge fertility rates much if at all. Poland's program of incentives showed some early success but more recent data found that childbearing is still trending down.
There are many things governments can do to ease the burden on parents—tax credits, parental leave, and banning smartphones in schools, among other ideas—but policymakers should keep their expectations in check about the effect these initiatives will have on fertility. If they just make family life easier and better, that's a good start. But frankly, we'd all be better off if the Trump people stay far away from family policy, lest they besmirch it.
Share
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Justice Department is investigating whether DC police officials falsified crime data
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department has opened an investigation into whether police officials in Washington, D.C., have falsified data to make crime rates appear lower than they are, according to a person familiar with the probe who wasn't authorized to publicly discuss an open investigation. The investigation comes amid an escalating — and political — showdown between the Trump administration and the city over control of the police department. It wasn't immediately clear what federal laws could have been violated by the possible manipulation of crime data. President Donald Trump claimed that violent crime in Washington is getting worse as he ordered a federal takeover of the city's police department, flooding the streets with hundreds of National Guard members. But he exaggerated or misstated many facts about public safety in Washington, where crime rates have fallen in recent years. Mayor Muriel Bowser's office declined to comment on the investigation. A spokesperson for U.S. Attorney Jeannine Pirro's office in Washington didn't respond to emails seeking comment. The New York Times was first to report on the investigation. Earlier this year, a Metropolitan Police Department commander suspected of manipulating crime data was placed on paid administrative leave, NBC Washington reported. Bowser told the television station last Tuesday that the city's police chief 'had concerns about one commander, investigated all seven districts and verified that the concern was with one person.' 'So, we are completing that investigation and we don't believe it implicates many cases,' the mayor added. Former interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin, who was Pirro's predecessor and Trump's first pick to lead the office, said Washington's violent crime had decreased in the first 100 days since Trump returned to the White House in January. In an April 28 news release, Martin's office said MPD data showed that violent crime had dropped by 25 percent since the start of 2025. 'We are proving that strong enforcement and smart policies can make our communities safer,' Martin said in the release. ___ Associated Press writer Matt Brown contributed to this report.
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump targets museums as last remaining segment of ‘woke'
President Trump on Tuesday complained that the Smithsonian museums in Washington, D.C., were 'out of control' with content that painted the country in a negative light, including about slavery. 'The Museums throughout Washington, but all over the Country are, essentially, the last remaining segment of 'WOKE,'' Trump posted on Truth Social. 'The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been — Nothing about Success, nothing about Brightness, nothing about the Future,' he added. 'We are not going to allow this to happen, and I have instructed my attorneys to go through the Museums, and start the exact same process that has been done with Colleges and Universities where tremendous progress has been made,' Trump wrote. 'This Country cannot be WOKE, because WOKE IS BROKE.' The White House last week launched a review of the Smithsonian museums to bring them into 'alignment' with Trump's directive to 'celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions.' The letter instructed eight of the Smithsonian's museums — including the National Museum of African American History and Culture, the National Museum of American History, the National Portrait Gallery and the National Museum of the American Indian, among others — to replace exhibits that include 'divisive or ideologically driven' material with 'unifying, historically accurate' content. In a statement, the Smithsonian said its work 'is grounded in a deep commitment to scholarly excellence, rigorous research, and the accurate, factual presentation of history.' The Smithsonian's 21 museums contain numerous exhibits covering a wide array of topics. Among them are the nation's history with slavery, technological advancements in space and flight, America's various military campaigns and the evolution of the entertainment industry. The Smithsonian came under scrutiny earlier this month after it removed a display that highlighted Trump's impeachment cases. The display at the National Museum of American History was later restored and updated version with information about Trump's impeachments. Trump has used the power of the presidency to target numerous institutions he disagrees with during his second term so far, including colleges and universities and law firms.
Boston Globe
23 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump and the not-so-noble Nobel
'I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for this, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the War between India and Pakistan, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the War between Serbia and Kosovo, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for keeping Peace between Egypt and Ethiopia … and I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for doing the Abraham Accords in the Middle East…. No, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do, including Russia/Ukraine, and Israel/Iran, whatever those outcomes may be, but the people know, and that's all that matters to me!' Meanwhile, Trump has been lining up endorsements from abroad to bolster his peace credentials. Government leaders from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Gabon, Israel, and Pakistan, seeing a way to ingratiate themselves with the US president, have all made a show of submitting his name to the Nobel committee. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt Advertisement Well, why not? Advertisement The Nobel Peace Prize is in a different category than its counterparts in the sciences, economics, and literature. Those awards are nearly always bestowed in recognition of undeniable achievement — a chemical discovery that expanded the boundaries of human knowledge, a significant body of writing compiled over many years, a medical breakthrough that has saved countless lives, economic insights that transformed financial markets or government policies. Before a scientist, an author, or an economist is awarded a Nobel Prize, his or her work has invariably been sifted and weighed and studied and put to the test of time. Its importance has been established, often through years of peer review. As a result, the science, literature, and economics Nobels rarely end up looking foolish or naive. The same can hardly be said of the peace prize, which has been awarded to any number of undeserving villains, phonies, or poseurs. While the other Nobels are awarded by committees of Swedish scholars and scientists, the peace laureate is chosen by a committee of Norwegian parliamentarians — who, like politicians everywhere, tend to be far more interested in what the headlines will say tomorrow than in what historians will believe 10 or 20 years hence. Unlike their Swedish counterparts, who don't mind waiting decades to be sure that any award they bestow reflects an unchallenged consensus of lasting achievement, the decisions of the peace prize committee often reflect ideological preferences or the passions of the moment rather than any meaningful contribution to peace. Advertisement Ironically, this overt politicization runs counter to Alfred Nobel's original intent. In his will, the Swedish industrialist stipulated that the Peace Prize should honor the individual or group that had 'done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.' Lofty words, but maddeningly vague. What, after all, constitutes 'fraternity between nations'? Does campaigning against climate change qualify? Does brokering a cease-fire that soon collapses? The committee has answered those questions with a flexibility bordering on caprice. The roster of peace laureates includes figures whose contributions to world peace have ranged from ambiguous to nonexistent to counterproductive. In 1973, the committee gave the prize to Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho for negotiating an end to the Vietnam War — a sham accord that paved the way to a brutal conquest and communist tyranny. The 1988 peace prize was awarded to the Advertisement And when Barack Obama was given the 2009 Nobel peace prize less than 10 months into his presidency, even he Most appalling of all was the 1994 award to PLO chief Yasser Arafat for signing the Oslo Accord the previous fall. Had the committee been less eager to make a splash, perhaps it would have thought twice before honoring an unrepentant terrorist whose commitment to warfare and bloodshed was undimmed. Seen in the light of that history, To be fair, not every Nobel Peace Prize has been a travesty. The committee has at times honored men and women whose work has been genuinely humanitarian and inspirational — figures such as Albert Schweitzer, Elie Wiesel, Liu Xiaobo, and Mother Teresa, who were celebrated not for brokering treaties but for embodying moral witness. Such choices are reminders that the peace prize can reflect ideals worth honoring. But they are exceptions that prove the rule: When the committee of Norwegian politicians reaches for statesmen or political causes, the results are usually more polarizing, and often regrettable. Advertisement Trump critics ranging from It's hardly surprising that the thought of a Trump Nobel stirs up such controversy. To his foes, the idea is intolerable because it would confer a moral halo on a man they regard as a bully and a demagogue. For Trump, by contrast, the Nobel represents the ultimate validation — an accolade from the global establishment that would eclipse every denunciation. Small wonder he lobbies so avidly. Yet in that, too, he is hardly unique. Past laureates have So really, does it matter if Donald Trump becomes a Nobel peace laureate? The peace prize long ago forfeited any claim to be a reliable measure of who genuinely advanced world peace. It's not a verdict of history but a snapshot of fashion, shaped by the preferences of five Norwegian politicians eager to make a statement. Once in a while their choice exalts a moral exemplar like Mother Teresa; more often it flatters a cause or rewards a politician whose 'achievement' looks far shakier in hindsight. The result is a roll of honor that veers from the saintly to the dubious, from genuinely inspiring to patently absurd. Advertisement Which is why it's futile to get worked up over the Trump boomlet. If Oslo decides to indulge his lobbying and flatter his vanity, it will not mean he deserves the accolade any more than Obama deserved his prize in 2009 or Arafat his in 1994. It will mean only that the Nobel committee has once again done what it so often does: confused politics with principle. Trump's critics will rage, his admirers will gloat, and history will judge the man by what he actually does, not by what the Norwegians proclaim. In the end, cynicism is the only sensible response to the Nobel Peace Prize. This article is adapted from the current , Jeff Jacoby's weekly newsletter. To subscribe to Arguable, visit . Jeff Jacoby can be reached at
