Opinion - Trump's ‘return to office' crusade smothers its pronatalist promise
The White House trumpets a 'baby bonus' — $5,000 wired days after delivery — to reverse America's record-low 1.6 fertility rate, documented by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Vital Statistics Reports. In the same breath, it orders every federal employee back to the office five days a week. But Stanford's new 'Working from Home in 2025' survey of 16,422 professionals upends that logic: women with children desire 2.66 remote days each week, higher than any other demographic.
The administration vows to grow families while vaporizing the flexibility that makes new children feasible, creating a collision that risks empty cribs and hollow offices alike.
Time rules parenthood. The average American commute consumes 55 minutes round-trip, meaning a traditional five-day schedule eats up almost another five hours of free time each week. Those hours fuel bedtime routines, homework patrol and marriage maintenance; without them, parental stress spikes.
Stanford's survey shows parents steer toward hybrid work precisely because several home days help restore that bandwidth. Parents still collaborate on site yet dodge traffic's cortisol surge. The federal badge doctrine yanks that option, forcing caregivers back into rush-hour gridlock and shredding the very capacity the 'baby bonus' seeks to reward. The White House defends the order as a downtown-revitalization plan, yet empty playgrounds undermine long-term urban vitality far more than shuttered salad bars.
The response has been swift — over 260,000 civil-service resignations, buyouts or early retirements since the mandate, a wave led by mid-career women. These departures bleed institutional knowledge, spike contractor costs and prove that rigid schedules push out precisely the workers the baby-bonus scheme aims to empower.
Direct payments headline well, yet history shows money alone seldom moves fertility. France, Hungary and South Korea all dangled cash but saw sustained birth-rate gains only after they paired subsidies with affordable childcare and generous leave. We've seen the same skepticism here, with women calling the $5,000 proposal 'meager' without schedule support.
In fact, policymakers still debate whether a bonus would move the needle at all. Child-care tuition already tops mortgage payments in many metro areas, and the gas, parking and wardrobe costs tied to full-time commutes burn up the bonus long before a first birthday.
Rigid attendance therefore turns the 'baby bonus' into a consolation prize for exhaustion.
The persistent declines in births stem from soaring childcare costs, student debt and delayed milestones such as homeownership — all problems amplified by longer daily commutes. When the administration mandates five badge scans a week, it inflates every hidden parenting expense the subsidy intends to ease. The result is policy whiplash: a check in one envelope, a time audit in the next.
The Stanford survey reinforces that economic calculus: women with children value schedule control more than any other employment perk, ranking it higher than pay or promotion prospects. Force them back, and many abandon growth plans — at work and at home. The administration's own ranks testify. Treasury's internal return-to-office guidance, issued in February, acknowledges 'heightened retention risk' among caregivers, yet it still enforces five days on-site. Pronatalism that ignores workplace physics turns into press-release theater.
One pivot resolves the clash: Replace the blanket five-day decree with a disciplined three-day anchor model for roles that do not handle classified hardware or wet-lab equipment.
Stanford's Steven Davis and Nicholas Bloom show firms keep productivity steady — or lift it — under such hybrid rules, while recruitment costs fall because talent pools widen geographically. Eighty percent of Fortune 500 companies now run some version of this model, proof that flexibility and performance coexist. Hybrid schedules also cut vehicle miles, handing the administration an unwritten climate victory without another regulation, as remote-work research from Hoover Institution scholars confirms.
Congress can hard-wire the alignment. Tie the enlarged Child Tax Credit now under debate to employer certification of at least two voluntary home days per week, nudging private firms toward family-friendly norms. House negotiators already weigh credit expansion as part of a broader pronatalist push. Add lease subsidies for offices that include on-site childcare and stroller storage, and the commute becomes a support node, not a hurdle.
Stanford's evidence stands clear: caregivers who will deliver tomorrow's taxpayers want 2.66 remote days each week, yet the badge order throttles that desire and drains the very talent the government hopes to retain. Align workplace structure with family aspirations, and the baby bonus transforms from political gimmick to demographic catalyst. Ignore the contradiction, and America exchanges rattles for resignation letters — a trade no nation can afford.
Flexibility, not fiat, is the linchpin that lets families, careers and the country thrive together.
Gleb Tsipursky, Ph.D., serves as the CEO of the hybrid work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts and authored the best-seller Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
18 minutes ago
- Politico
Royal letters, famous golfers and rehearsed pitches: The tips and tricks to a successful Trump meeting
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer came carrying a signed letter from the king. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa brought along two golf champs. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney repeatedly practiced his elevator pitch ahead of his Oval Office meeting On Thursday, it's German Chancellor Friedrich Merz's turn to meet with President Donald Trump. Ahead of his first White House visit, the German press has offered some unsolicited advice: lean into their shared affinity for golf. Numerous foreign leaders have invested heavily in the choreography of a face-to-face with the U.S. president. The meetings, which U.S. officials have downplayed as 'just another world leader coming to visit,' come with huge stakes at home and abroad for those leaders. How to handle a mercurial American president prone to ambushing his guests requires unique preparation. 'How to survive your Trump meeting,' as an American lobbyist who advises foreign governments calls it, has become a cottage industry for lobbyists, consultants and national security experts in Washington. That's according to interviews with a dozen government officials, diplomats and advisers. Most of these officials were granted anonymity to speak openly about how foreign governments manage Trump. Even Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his team prepared assiduously, hearing from key Republicans on Capitol Hill what amounted to a 'Trump 101' crash course on how to engage with the president, according to three congressional staffers and two other people briefed on the matter. That now infamous meeting went off the rails anyway — exponentially increasing the anxiety of other world leaders about taking part in Trump's newest reality show, an unscripted Oval Office get-to-know-you session featuring several Cabinet officials and playing out live before the White House press corps and broadcast instantly around the world. The Zelenskyy meeting 'was a real 'oh shit' moment for other leaders,' said one senior U.S. congressional aide familiar with the planning that went into that meeting. 'They saw this public gauntlet they'd have to run. How do I avoid the Dumpster fire Zelenskyy fell into?' Managing Trump is nothing new for foreign leaders who saw how the U.S. president operated during his first term. But the efforts to coddle a lifelong public performer, who can shift quickly from charming to contentious, have intensified since Trump took office for the second time in January, noticeably more confident and far less restrained in his approach to the job. 'What Zelenskyy went through was a huge lesson learned for other world leaders. Without a doubt, everyone's been studying that really closely,' said another American who engages with the Ukrainian government on how to manage U.S. ties. Japan's new prime minister, Shigeru Ishiba, the second head of state invited to the White House after Trump's inauguration, prepared for his early February visit by studying graphics showing Japan as the top foreign investor in the U.S. and brainstorming with aides about what demands Trump might make, Ishiba's aides said at the time. When asked by reporters during his Oval Office sit-down what he thought of the president, Ishiba said, through a translator, that Trump's television career made him 'intimidating' but that he was 'powerful' and 'sincere' in person. Carney, whose condemnations of Trump's bullying '51st State' rhetoric propelled his Liberal coalition to an unlikely electoral victory this spring, spoke with several official and informal advisers in the run-up to his post-election White House visit in early May. One person who spoke with the prime minister, granted anonymity to discuss the private conversation, said they counseled him to distill his message into a couple clear phrases and repeat them as needed. 'With Trump, you want to make sure there is one core sentence, even two to three core sentences you are going to find a way to get out no matter what,' the person who advised Carney continued. 'And you don't need to talk that much. Let him speak.' Carney followed the advice, emphasizing that Canada was 'not for sale' but that the two countries were 'stronger when they work together.' It proved effective in lowering the temperature: Trump complimented Carney's initial statement and, shortly after the prime minister left the White House, described the conversation as a 'great meeting' with 'no tension.' The person said they gave the same advice to Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre before his White House visit in late April.'The reason the Zelenskyy meeting went so badly was Zelenskyy was trying to spar like an equal,' they said. 'That is not allowed in the meeting.' The risk of entering Trump's lion's den can be worth the reward for world leaders. Trump pared back his musings of acquiring Canada as a 51st state after the meeting with Carney. Finnish President Alexander Stubb, who traveled to Mar-a-Lago in late March just to play a round of golf with Trump, later convinced the U.S. president to reverse a decision on building icebreakers and purchase those ships from Finland. South Africa's Ramaphosa, who similarly tried to connect with Trump over golf by bringing South African golfers Retief Goosen and Ernie Els with him to the White House, received a harsher treatment. Trump, eager to highlight unfounded allegations about a 'genocide' targeting South Africa's white farmers, turned down the lights and played on a television wheeled into the Oval an unsourced video of what he said were gravesites. Forced into a defensive posture, Ramaphosa expressed uncertainty about the scenes depicted but did not directly criticize Trump, even as he tried to dispel the notion that a genocide was occuring. However awkward his meeting, the South African leader, unlike Zelenskyy months earlier, managed to avoid a bigger blow-up. Brian Clow, former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's top adviser during Trump's first term and the early days of the ongoing trade war, revealed the blueprint for dealing with the president. 'Even if Trump says some outrageous things, you've got to choose if you're going to interject or disagree — because it may be counterproductive in the long term if you get into too much of a back and forth.' Translation: don't get Zelenskyy-ed. Clow's next piece of advice: vibes matter. 'You've got to prepare for the overall tone and approach that you want to take,' Clow said. 'That can be just as important as the policy issues.' He suggested calling up the White House in advance, Clow said: 'Scope out how conversations might go, what could come up. That can actually influence how the meeting itself goes.' But preparation can only go so far with a U.S. president famous for unpredictability, Clow said. In March, Trump raised an obscure 1908 border treaty with Trudeau as he mused about erasing the border between the two countries. Trudeau was forced to deflect ian the moment. The big takeaway: 'Tread carefully,' Clow advised anybody who walks into the Oval Office. 'This is Trump's show, and you've got to let him do his thing.'
Los Angeles Times
18 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
What ‘China shock'? Trade didn't wreck the U.S. economy
When Donald Trump first campaigned in 2016, he capitalized on a potent narrative: that China's rise gutted American manufacturing, leaving countless blue-collar communities devastated. Known now as the 'China shock,' that idea paved the way for a dramatic resurgence in protectionism, culminating in sweeping tariffs including Trump's controversial 'Liberation Day' duties. Yet we continue to learn just how shaky the theory's foundations are. Pioneered by economists David Autor, David Dorn and Gordon Hanson, the China shock trope suggests that American regions heavily exposed to Chinese imports suffered significantly greater job losses than did less-exposed areas. Populists seized upon it to argue that China's 2001 accession to the World Trade Organization caused millions of job losses in the U.S. and social disintegration. But a theory's easy and outsized application to policy does not settle questions about its accuracy. That's what American Enterprise Institute scholar Scott Winship wanted to determine in a recent comprehensive review that set out to prove whether the China shock reduced American manufacturing employment. By examining alternative studies and methodological adjustments, Winship contends that the negative effects of trade with China have been significantly exaggerated and that populist narratives blaming this trade for U.S. economic decline aren't supported by rigorous evidence. The originators of China shock examined how Chinese imports affected certain U.S. locales compared with others — not with the entire country — based on initial industry composition and employment size. By these metrics, areas heavily exposed to Chinese imports showed disproportionately worse manufacturing job losses. However, Winship points out that even if we accept these estimates, the findings suggest only relatively modest employment effects. To put things in perspective, Winship gives the example of two hypothetical commuting zones with 200,000 working-age residents and 20,000 manufacturing workers. Data from the theory's proponents indicate that moving from low (10th percentile) to high (90th percentile) exposure to Chinese imports would result in a loss of roughly 2,700 manufacturing jobs — just a 1.4 percentage point drop in overall manufacturing employment. While significant, this does not convincingly explain the community decline, social disruption, and populist backlash often blamed specifically on Chinese trade. In addition, Winship flags multiple methodological issues. Once other economists revised the proponents' methods, the estimated negative impact shrank dramatically. Various follow-up studies found the China shock effect on manufacturing employment to be 50% smaller than initially claimed. Further research revealed that job losses in exposed areas were often offset or even outweighed by employment gains in other sectors. One detailed Census Bureau study even found that firms with greater Chinese import exposure increased manufacturing employment, reallocating jobs to more efficient domestic production lines enabled by cheaper imports. Moreover, the steady decline in U.S. manufacturing employment began decades before China's WTO entry. Between the late 1970s and 2000, factory employment had already decreased substantially, mostly because of technological advances and shifting consumer demand. Notably, there was no sudden acceleration of this decline after China joined the WTO. The rate of manufacturing job losses remained consistent with earlier trends, undermining claims that Chinese trade uniquely devastated American manufacturing. Furthermore, former manufacturing workers generally did not face permanent unemployment. In fact, unemployment rates among this group were lower in recent years compared to the late 1990s, before the peak of Chinese imports. Many workers transitioned successfully into other sectors, belying the notion of an enduring displacement crisis. It's also worth noting that there are around a half of a million unfilled manufacturing jobs today. Despite these realities, the exaggerated narrative persists as a political force. Trump's tariffs — taxes on American consumers raising prices on everyday goods from cars to clothing — have greatly increased economic uncertainty. American manufacturers reliant on imported components face higher input costs, dampening their competitiveness and causing unintended layoffs. In fact, evidence from Trump's first term showed that his tariffs often hurt American firms more than their foreign competitors. With broader and higher tariffs, we can only fear the worst. Instead of doubling down on tariffs and isolation, we need to empower U.S. workers to adapt to economic changes, whether caused by trade or economic downturn. Economists have shown that to the extent that workers sometimes don't recover from shocks, it tends to be a failure to adjust because of obstacles erected by government. Winship's critical reassessment of the China shock clarifies the actual, limited role Chinese imports have played in manufacturing-employment trends. The real 'shock' America faces in 2025 is not from Chinese imports, but from a resurgence of misguided protectionism based on a misdiagnosed problem. The path forward harnesses trade's real benefits rather than chasing economic illusions. Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate.
19 minutes ago
Trump directs DOJ, White House counsel to investigate Biden's mental state in office
President Donald Trump ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate whether former President Joe Biden's administration sought to conspire to cover up his mental state while in office, prompting a response from Biden. "Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency," Biden said in a statement. "I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn't is ridiculous and false." The move by the White House represents a significant escalation from the White House, as it is a directive to the Justice Department to formally investigate. It goes beyond the review into Biden's last-minute pardons before leaving office Biden responded to Trump's memo to Bondi and the Department of Justice, calling an investigation "nothing more than a mere distraction" and defending his decision-making ability. In a statement he says any suggestion he was not in control is "ridiculous and false." "This is nothing more than a distraction by Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans who are working to push disastrous legislation that would cut essential programs like Medicaid and raise costs on American families, all to pay for tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy and big corporations," Biden said in a statement sent to ABC News. The president directed the U.S.'s top law enforcement official, in coordination with his White House counsel, to investigate "the circumstances surrounding Biden's supposed execution of numerous executive actions during his final years in office," according to a statement from the White House.
