Trump administration push for more babies not an easy task

It should be no surprise that the Trump administration is exploring ways to convince Americans to have more babies.

President Donald Trump has long called for a “baby boom.” Vice President JD Vance in January said having babies is a core obligation one generation has to another, concluding, “I want more babies in the United States of America.” Trump adviser and DOGE head Elon Musk said low birthrates are such a threat to civilization that “humanity is dying.” He’s doing his part, fathering 14 children thus far.

Muskian hyperbole aside, facts do gird their concerns. American birthrates, as in many countries, are declining. This past week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention confirmed that the U.S. fertility rate is near its record low. That has spurred some brainstorming.

Among the ideas reportedly being mulled in the White House are giving $5,000 to every American mother after delivery of a child, reserving 30% of prestigious Fulbright scholarships for applicants who are married or have children, funding programs that teach women about menstrual cycles so they better understand when they can become pregnant, and bestowing to mothers of six or more children a “National Medal of Motherhood.”

Let’s stipulate that an additional financial incentive or tax credit for having babies — though the reality of rearing children requires far more than $5,000 — is not a bad idea. But let’s also acknowledge that similar tactics in other countries in similar straits have failed to boost births — including cash for new parents in Russia, Italy and Greece; paid parental leave and tax breaks in Taiwan; maternity leave of 2.5 years in Austria; and a guarantee of public day care in Germany.

Let’s also acknowledge the dark politics coursing under these family planning concerns, expressed by former Fox News host Tucker Carlson and echoed by Vance and Musk, that the falling birthrate among native-born Americans is particularly worrying. On a 2021 podcast, Vance said flatly that “you can’t have so many people coming to the country at a time when our own families aren’t replicating themselves.” It was a rejoinder to the argument that America needs immigration to offset the decline in children born to native Americans, which Vance called “a sociopathic way of looking at the future.”

Whatever the politics, dealing with the decline in birthrates seems to call for understanding why the numbers are down. Some light might have been shed by a survey released last week. The Harvard Youth Poll queried more than 2,000 Americans nationwide between 18 and 29 years old and found that more than 40% say they’re “barely getting by” financially, fewer than half feel any sense of community, only 15% believe the country is heading in the right direction, less than a third approve of Trump or either party in Congress, and just 48% say having children is important. That last is a generational shift.

In other words, they are struggling financially and socially, don’t see their country as being in a good place, and don’t like their leaders — not the traditional petri dish for wanting to have children.

They’re not the first generation of Americans to feel that way, of course. But they are blessed — or cursed — with more awareness of the forces that shape their lives. Reversing the birthrate trend will take more than a tax policy change or medal of merit. U.S. birthrates took off after World War II as a victorious nation awash in new prosperity was feeling good about itself.

Let’s also not lose sight of the really big picture. The world’s population continues to grow. Earth is a finite place with finite resources. At some point, a stable population seems a net positive.

The urge to spur births is understandable. But the people being spurred have to feel that urge.

 Columnist Michael Dobie’s opinions are his own.

By Michael Dobie

michael.dobie@newsday.commwdobie

Michael Dobie is a member of the Newsday editorial board.