Give birth? In this economy? US women scoff at Trump's meager ‘baby bonuses'
'Maybe people will want to have children more often if we weren't struggling to find jobs, struggling to pay our student loans, struggling to pay for food,' she said. 'Five thousand dollars doesn't even begin to even cover childcare for one month. It just seems really ridiculous.'
Trump officials have made no secret of their desire to make America procreate again. In his very first address as vice-president, JD Vance said at the anti-abortion March for Life: 'I want more babies in the United States of America.' Weeks later, a Department of Transportation memo directed the agency to focus on projects that 'give preference to communities with marriage and birth rates higher than the national average'. Then, in late April, the New York Times reported that the administration was brainstorming policies to encourage people to get married and have kids, such as giving out those baby bonuses or awarding medals to women who have at least six children.
Related: The rise of pronatalism: why Musk, Vance and the right want women to have more babies
All of these moves are evidence of the growing power of the pronatalist movement within US politics. This movement, which has won adherents among both traditional 'family values' conservatives and tech-bro rightwingers such as Elon Musk, considers the falling US birthrate to be an existential threat to the country's future and thus holds that the US government should enact policies designed to incentivize people to give birth.
But many of the women who are, in theory, the targets of the pronatalist pitch have just one response: Have babies? In this economy?
After the New York Times report broke, social media exploded with indignation at the proposed policies' inadequacy. 'Go ahead and tell Uncle Sam what he needs to give you to make him Daddy Sam,' a woman rasped at the camera in one TikTok with nearly 1m likes. 'Universal – ?' she started to say, in a presumable reference to universal healthcare. 'No. No. Where did you even hear that?'
'Five thousand? That doesn't go very far!' one 24-year-old stay-at-home mother of four complained in another TikTok, as her children babbled in the background. 'It costs 200, 300 bucks just to buy a car seat for these kids. I just feel like it's really just insulting. If you want people to have more kids, make housing more affordable. Make food more affordable.'
[The Trump administration wants] to incentivize people to have children. I don't think they have a real stake in helping people raise them
Paige Connell
Although the cost of raising a child in the US varies greatly depending on factors such as geography, income level and family structure, a middle-class family with dual incomes can expect to spend somewhere between $285,000 and $311,000 raising a child born in 2015, a 2022 analysis by the Brookings Institute found. That analysis doesn't factor in the price of college tuition, which also varies but, as of last year, cost about $11,600 a year at an in-state, public university.
The cost of merely giving birth is more expensive in the US than in almost any other country on the planet. An uncomplicated birth covered by private insurance. which is basically the best-case scenario for US parents, tends to cost about $3,000, according to Abigail Leonard's new book Four Mothers.
Paige Connell, a 35-year-old working mom of four who regularly posts online about motherhood, had a long list of pro-family policies she would like to see adopted. For example: lowering the cost of childcare, which runs to about $70,000 a year for Connell's family. (An April Trump administration memo proposed eliminating Head Start, which helps low-income families obtain childcare, although the administration appears to have recently reversed course.) Or: preserving the Department of Education, as Connell has children in public school and some of them rely on specialized education plans. (Trump has signed an executive order aiming to dismantle the department, in an apparent attempt to get around the fact that only Congress can close federal departments.)
'They want to incentivize people to have children. I don't think they have a real stake in helping people raise them,' Connell said of the Trump administration. 'Many women that I know – women and men – do want more kids. They actually want to have more children. They simply can't afford it.'
Lyman Stone, a demographer who in 2024 established the pronatalism initiative at the right-leaning Institute for Family Studies, argued in an interview last year that 'most of missing babies in our society are first and second births' – that is, that people avoid having a second child or having kids at all. Pronatalism, he said, should focus on helping those people decide otherwise.
'The misconception is this idea that pronatalism is about tradwives and giant families, when it's really about, on some level, helping the girl boss, like, girl boss in her family life a little bit earlier and harder,' Stone said.
Some Americans may indeed be having fewer children than they would like. Among adults under 50 who say they are unlikely to have children, close to 40% say that they are not doing so due to 'concerns about the state of the world' or because they 'can't afford to raise a child', according to a 2024 Pew survey. A 2025 Harris poll for the Guardian found that the state of the economy has negatively affected 65% of Americans' plans to have a child.
Women are realizing that they're more than just birthing machines
Savannah Downing
But to say that pronatalism is about helping the 'girl boss' have one or two kids is not quite accurate, given that several prominent pronatalists are deeply interested in producing 'giant families'. Malcolm and Simone Collins, who have become the avatars of the tech-right wing of pronatalism, have at least four children and show no signs of slowing down. (The Collinses were behind the medal idea reported by the Times; they called it a 'National Medal of Motherhood'.) Musk, perhaps the most famous pronatalist on the planet, reportedly runs something of a harem and is believed to have fathered 14 children.
Republicans are also currently exploring policies that would entice more parents to stay at home with their children, the New York Times reported on Monday, such as expanding the child tax credit from $2,000 to $5,000. While these potential policies do not specify which parent would stay at home, four out of five stay-at-home parents are moms.
However, this goal is seemingly at odds with Republicans' desire to slash the US budget by more than $1.5tn. Indeed, Republicans have proposed dramatically curtailing Medicaid – a proposal that would appear to hinder the pronatalism agenda, because Medicaid pays for more than 40% of all US births.
Pronatalism has long been intertwined with racism, eugenics and authoritarian governments. Nazi Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union gave out medals to women who had large numbers of children, while in the United States, interest in pronatalism has historically surged in eras, such as the early 20th century, when women and immigrants were trying to participate more in public life. Today, fears about the consequences of the near record low US birthrate are often tied to concerns about the country's shrinking workforce. Immigration could help alleviate those concerns, but the Trump administration is deeply opposed to it.
All this leads to a fundamental question: do pronatalists want everybody to have children – or just some types of people?
'What I've seen online of the pronatalist movement, it does seem very aligned with white supremacy, because it does seem like a lot of the conversation around it is more geared towards white couples having more babies,' said Madison Block, a product marketing manager and writer who lives in New York. She's also leery of the Trump administration's focus on autism, which could translate into ableism: 'A lot of the conversations around pronatalism, in addition to being borderline white supremacist, I think are also very ableist.'
Now that she's 28, Block said that many of her friends were starting to get married and consider having babies. But Block is afraid to do so under the current administration. And when she thinks about potentially starting a family, affordable healthcare is non-negotiable.
'I personally wouldn't want to have kids unless I know for a fact that I am financially stable enough, that I can provide them with an even better childhood than what I have,' Block said. 'I think, for a lot of younger millennials and gen Z, a lot of us are not at that point yet.'
Perhaps the ultimate irony of the Trump administration's pronatalist push is that it is not clear what pronatalist policies, if any, actually induce people into becoming parents.
In past years, Hungary has poured 5% of its national GDP into boosting births, such as through exempting women who have four children or more children from paying taxes. This herculean effort has not worked: as of 2023, the country's birth rate has hovered at 1.6, well below the replacement rate of 2.1. (For a country to maintain its population, women must have about two children each.) More left-leaning countries, such as those in Scandinavia, have also embarked on extensive government programs to make it easier for women to have kids and maintain careers – yet their birth rates also remain lower than the replacement rate and, in the case of Sweden, even dropped.
It may be the case that, when access to technologies like birth control give people more choices over when and how to have children, they may simply choose to have fewer children. In that 2024 Pew survey, nearly 60% of respondents said that they were unlikely to have kids because they 'just don't want to'.
Downing is not that concerned about pronatalism taking root among the general public. Personally, she doesn't feel like there's too much governmental pressure on her to have kids, particularly since she is Black and much of the pronatalism movement seems focused on pushing white women to have babies.
'I feel like a lot of women are fed up. I think that's why the birth rate is going down,' she said. 'Women are realizing that they're more than just birthing machines.'
But images from The Handmaid's Tale – the red capes, the white bonnets – haunt her.
'I think $5,000 and a medal trying to coax women into having more kids is a start,' she said, 'and I really am worried to see how far they will go to try to force women and have children'.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump thinks owning a piece of Intel would be a good deal for the US. Here's what to know
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — President Donald Trump wants the U.S. government to own a piece of Intel, less than two weeks after demanding the Silicon Valley pioneer dump the CEO that was hired to turn around the slumping chipmaker. If the goal is realized, the investment would deepen the Trump administration's involvement in the computer industry as the president ramps up the pressure for more U.S. companies to manufacture products domestically instead of relying on overseas suppliers. What's happening? The Trump administration is in talks to secure a 10% stake in Intel in exchange for converting government grants that were pledged to Intel under President Joe Biden. If the deal is completed, the U.S. government would become one of Intel's largest shareholders and blur the traditional lines separating the public sector and private sector in a country that remains the world's largest economy. Why would Trump do this? In his second term, Trump has been leveraging his power to reprogram the operations of major computer chip companies. The administration is requiring Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices, two companies whose chips are helping to power the craze around artificial intelligence, to pay a 15% commission on their sales of chips in China in exchange for export licenses. Trump's interest in Intel is also being driven by his desire to boost chip production in the U.S., which has been a focal point of the trade war that he has been waging throughout the world. By lessening the country's dependence on chips manufactured overseas, the president believes the U.S. will be better positioned to maintain its technological lead on China in the race to create artificial intelligence. Didn't Trump want Intel's CEO to quit? That's what the president said August 7 in an unequivocal post calling for Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan to resign less than five months after the Santa Clara, California, company hired him. The demand was triggered by reports raising national security concerns about Tan's past investments in Chinese tech companies while he was a venture capitalist. But Trump backed off after Tan professed his allegiance to the U.S. in a public letter to Intel employees and went to the White House to meet with the president, who applauded the Intel CEO for having an 'amazing story.' Why would Intel do a deal? The company isn't commenting about the possibility of the U.S. government becoming a major shareholder, but Intel may have little choice because it is currently dealing from a position of weakness. After enjoying decades of growth while its processors powered the personal computer boom, the company fell into a slump after missing the shift to the mobile computing era unleashed by the iPhone's 2007 debut. Intel has fallen even farther behind in recent years during an artificial intelligence craze that has been a boon for Nvidia and AMD. The company lost nearly $19 billion last year and another $3.7 billion in the first six months of this year, prompting Tan to undertake a cost-cutting spree. By the end of this year, Tan expects Intel to have about 75,000 workers, a 25% reduction from the end of last year. Would this deal be unusual? Although rare, it's not unprecedented for the U.S. government to become a significant shareholder in a prominent company. One of the most notable instances occurred during the Great Recession in 2008 when the government injected nearly $50 billion into General Motors in return for a roughly 60% stake in the automaker at a time it was on the verge of bankruptcy. The government ended up with a roughly $10 billion loss after it sold its stock in GM. Would the government run Intel? U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told CNBC during a Tuesday interview that the government has no intention of meddling in Intel's business, and will have its hands tied by holding non-voting shares in the company. But some analysts wonder if the Trump administration's financial ties to Intel might prod more companies looking to curry favor with the president to increase their orders for the company's chips. What government grants does Intel receive? Intel was among the biggest beneficiaries of the Biden administration's CHIPS and Science Act, but it hasn't been able to revive its fortunes while falling behind on construction projects spawned by the program. The company has received about $2.2 billion of the $7.8 billion pledged under the incentives program — money that Lutnick derided as a 'giveaway' that would better serve U.S. taxpayers if it's turned into Intel stock. 'We think America should get the benefit of the bargain,' Lutnick told CNBC. 'It's obvious that it's the right move to make.' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

USA Today
23 minutes ago
- USA Today
What six wars did Donald Trump end? See the list of conflicts he claims as settled
As President Donald Trump continues to work toward peace between Russia and Ukraine, he is touting a record of settling six wars. "I've settled 6 Wars in 6 months, one of them a possible Nuclear disaster," Trump wrote on Truth Social on Aug. 18, before the meeting with European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House where he made a similar claim. "I know exactly what I'm doing, and I don't need the advice of people who have been working on all of these conflicts for years, and were never able to do a thing to stop them," the social meda comment continued. But did Trump really end six wars in six months? Here is what we know: More: Trump caught on hot mic talking to Macron: 'I think he wants to make a deal for me' Has Trump ended six wars? Since Trump took office, the United States has been involved in five ceasefires or peace agreements, though not all parties involved credit the U.S. for the agreements. Those include: When asked about the sixth war Trump was referring to, the White House also cited Ethiopia and Egypt. However, there has neither been a war or a peace agreement between the countries, according to Axios. Trump dealt with a dispute between the two countries in his first term as they were feuding over a huge hydropowerdam, the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. Egypt and Sudan have expressed concern that water flow to their part of the Nile River would be impacted, USA TODAY previously reported. Trump mentioned the countries in a July meeting with the NATO Secretary General where he rattled off other examples of settling wars. "We worked on Egypt with a next-door neighbor who is a good neighbor," he said. "They're friends of mine, but they happened to build a dam, which closed up water going into a thing called the Nile. I think if I'm Egypt, I want to have water in the Nile and we're working on that." The White House did not answer follow-up questions on how this constitutes a "settled war." More: A Nobel Peace Prize for Trump? World leaders are lining up What happened at the meeting between Zelenskyy and Trump? Zelenskyy's August trip to the White House had far fewer fireworks than the February visit, when he was berated by Trump and Vice President JD Vance. In addition to Zelenskyy, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Finnish President Alexander Stubb, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer also attended the summit on Aug. 18. Zelenskyy, wearing a black suit instead of the military garb that drew comments in February, met with Trump in the Oval Office ahead of the wider group of foreign leaders. He also thanked Trump, something Vance had criticized Zelenskyy of not doing during the previous Oval Office spat. Trump then met with the European leaders in the White House East Room, saying they would know 'in a week or two weeks' if a deal to stop the fighting is possible. After the day of meetings with the European leaders, Trump called Putin to urge him to meet with Zelenskyy. Trump deemed it a step in the right direction. "Everyone is very happy about the possibility of PEACE for Russia/Ukraine. At the conclusion of the meetings, I called President Putin, and began the arrangements for a meeting, at a location to be determined, between President Putin and President Zelenskyy," he wrote on Truth Social. "After that meeting takes place, we will have a Trilat, which would be the two Presidents, plus myself. Again, this was a very good, early step for a War that has been going on for almost four years." Although the meeting showed strong European unity, it was unclear whether major progress toward peace was made. Trump said the United States would help guarantee Ukraine's security in a deal, but did not clarify the extent of the commitment. He also appeared to dismiss the need for a ceasefire ahead of peace negotiations. Contributing: Joey Garrison, Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy, Bart Jansen, Zac Anderson, Francesca Chambers, Josh Meyer, Kim Hjelmgaard, USA TODAY Kinsey Crowley is the Trump Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach her at kcrowley@ Follow her on X and TikTok @kinseycrowley or Bluesky at @


The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump: ‘Better' if Putin, Zelensky meet without him
President Trump said Tuesday that it would be 'better' if Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky met without him first as Trump pushes the leaders to bring an end to the more than three-year-long war in Eastern Europe. The president, who has pushed for a three-way summit with Zelensky and Putin, said he recently had 'very successful' meetings with both leaders, but it would be more beneficial if the two presidents met alone first. 'I thought it would be better if they met without me, just to see. I want to see what goes on. You know, they had a hard relationship, very bad, very bad relationship,' Trump said in an interview on 'The Mark Levin Show.' 'And now we'll see how they do and, if necessary, and it probably would be, but if necessary, I'll go and I'll probably be able to get it close,' he told conservative podcaster Mark Levin. After meeting with Zelensky and seven European leaders at the White House on Monday, Trump said his administration would help broker a meeting between Putin and Zelensky and that soon after, a trilateral meeting including the U.S. president would take place. Zelensky has expressed openness to meeting with Putin, but Russia so far has not committed to such a huddle. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Tuesday that any such meeting should be prepared 'step by step, gradually, starting from the expert level and then going through all the necessary stages.' After Monday's Oval Office meeting, Trump called Putin and the two spoke for about 40 minutes. The conversation came days after the president traveled to Alaska to meet with Putin, their first face-to-face interaction since the first Trump administration, alongside Secretary of State Marco Rubio and special envoy Steve Witkoff. 'I just want to see what happens at the meeting,' Trump told Levin. 'So they're in the process of setting it up, and we're going to see what happens.'