As a policy correspondent for Vox, she has dedicated over a decade to covering critical social issues such as housing, education, homelessness, child care, and abortion rights. Her insightful work continues to shed light on these pressing matters that affect countless Americans.

Recent reports from The New York Times reveal that the Trump administration is actively seeking suggestions on how to encourage marriage and boost birth rates among Americans. This politically charged initiative has sparked widespread discussion, drawing a range of proposals that vary in their feasibility and societal implications.

Among the ideas floated, some border on the absurd, such as reserving prestigious Fulbright scholarships exclusively for married couples or applicants with children. Others are more unsettling, like the suggestion of establishing a "National Medal of Motherhood" for women who have six or more childrena nod to a troubling tradition once associated with Nazi Germany. Despite the outlandish nature of some suggestions, the administrations pursuit of these pronatalist strategies reveals significant underlying tensions, particularly as Republicans are currently prioritizing a $1.5 trillion reduction in the federal budget.

If President Trump, who has branded himself as the "fertilization president," endorses any of these pronatalist proposals, it is likely that his party will scramble to adapt their policies accordingly. One initiative that Trump has previously expressed interest in is a lump-sum baby bonus. The Times reported on a proposal for a $5,000 payment to new mothers, which Trump recently commented sounds like a good idea. This aligns with his previous statements made at the 2023 Conservative Political Action Conference, where he voiced support for baby bonuses aimed at facilitating a new baby boom.

This mix of recent pronatalist proposals has ignited a fierce debate, particularly among progressive advocates who view them as a form of state-sponsored coercion in a milk-maid dress. Nonetheless, the concept of a baby bonus is not without precedent; many countries have successfully implemented similar policies to support new parents. The pressing question in the U.S. extends beyond whether these modest financial incentives might boost birth rates or provide immediate relief for families; it delves into whether adopting such measures would promote a political agenda steeped in traditional gender roles and reproductive oppression, all while overshadowing the deeper structural investments parents genuinely require.

Understanding Baby Bonuses

Currently, various versions of the baby bonus are under discussion in policy circles across the U.S. The Niskanen Center, a think tank, has proposed a $2,000 baby bonus, acknowledging the pressing need to consider federal budget constraints. On the other hand, the American Compass think tank has suggested a tiered approach, offering $2,000 to single parents and $4,000 to married couples as part of a broader effort to incentivize marriage.

Interestingly, during her presidential campaign, Democratic candidate Kamala Harris introduced her version of a baby bonusoffering a $6,000 tax break to new parents. Harris emphasized that this benefit would alleviate financial pressures during the critical first year of a childs life, supporting essential developmental milestones. However, it remains unclear whether her proposal would be disbursed as a lump sum or through monthly installments.

Baby bonuses provide immediate financial relief, a significant advantage for new parents who often face reduced working hours and increased caretaking expenses. Research from the Urban Institute indicates that the birth of a child can result in an average income drop of 10.4% in the month of birth compared to prior income levels. Furthermore, studies have shown that American households, particularly single mothers, frequently experience a notable decline in income in the months following childbirth. Unlike the existing Child Tax Credit (CTC), a baby bonus would offer immediate support, eliminating the waiting period until tax season for new parents seeking financial aid.

Globally, baby bonuses have a long-standing history of support from various governments. Finland was a pioneer, launching its program in 1938, which offered low-income mothers the option of a cash benefit or a maternity package containing essential baby items. By 1949, the program was expanded to all expectant mothers who attended prenatal care before the fourth month of pregnancy, inspiring over 60 other countries to implement similar maternity packages in the following decades.

In the modern context, countries like Australia provide new parents with approximately $1,700 in payments over the first 13 weeks, while Singapore offers a baby bonus of about $8,000 spread over 6.5 years. Germany supplements its universal childcare system with regular child stipends of around $275 per month. Japan has combined a lump-sum baby bonus of approximately $3,200 with monthly payments of around $100 for each child under the age of three.

Interestingly, in 2019, the left-leaning Peoples Policy Project put forth a proposal advocating for a similar approach in the U.S. This plan suggested that every family receive a care box filled with essential items three months before the birth of a child, along with a $300 monthly allowance until the child turned 18.

The Effectiveness of Baby Bonuses

Leah Libresco Sargeant, who authored the Niskanen Centers baby bonus proposal, clarifies that she does not view the idea as a bribe aimed at convincing people to have children, nor does she believe it is substantial enough to dramatically alter anyones fertility plans. However, she acknowledges that a baby bonus could assist some individuals in deciding to carry pregnancies they might have otherwise terminated for financial reasons.

Moreover, Sargeant highlights the potential of the baby bonus to help Americans navigate the unique challenges of parenthood, whether by compensating grandparents for their assistance or enabling parents eligible for job-protected leave under the (unpaid) Family and Medical Leave Act to take actual time off work. This vision aligns with the original advocacy behind Australias baby bonus, which was introduced in 2004 to support mothers who were ineligible for paid leave from their employers.

However, the Trump administration's association with such policies may complicate their acceptance among certain demographics. Many Democratic lawmakers and progressive advocates, while recognizing the potential benefits of a baby bonus, view the current discussions as a distraction from the Trump administrations broader agenda, which includes tariffs that could significantly increase the cost of raising children and potentially sink the economy into recession. Recently, 39 House Democratic female lawmakers sent a letter to Trump criticizing his administration's focus on what they termed hollow incentives for childbirth. They emphasized that while baby bonuses could indeed benefit families, mothers deserve more comprehensive support, rather than pressure to expand their families.

The situation is further complicated by recent actions taken by the White House, including the dismantling of federal teams dedicated to maternal health and reproductive medicine, alongside proposed cuts to the federal preschool program that currently supports nearly 800,000 low-income children. Additionally, the lack of comprehensive paid parental leave and the exorbitant costs of childbirth, particularly for uninsured individuals, remain glaring issues that require attention. House Republicans are also scheduled to vote on cuts to Medicaid, which could strip health insurance from millions of Americans, although Trump claims he would veto such cuts.

Once pronatalist advocates like Musk and Trump complete the severe slashing of the already inadequate safety net, the U.S. is likely to face a baby bust rather than a boom, warned Joan Walsh in her recent commentary for The Nation.

Beyond the economic implications, there is a growing skepticism surrounding the underlying motivations of pronatalists. Many prominent figures within the movement actively oppose abortion rights and advocate for a return to traditional gender roles. The Heritage Foundation, which has been promoting pronatalist policies to the Trump administration, has even called for reducing government subsidies for higher education, alleging that it encourages young people to delay starting families.

Despite varying opinions on the topic, the fiscal conservative agenda to slash federal spending casts doubt on even the most modest baby bonus proposals. Kevin Corinth, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, recently argued that increased spending on child benefits could exacerbate the already pressing issue of the ballooning federal debt, ultimately making it more challenging to raise a family due to higher taxes and diminished economic growth.

Generally, conservatives prefer expanding the Child Tax Credit (CTC), which reduces tax liability, over refundable credits or direct payments. They also favor benefits linked to employment rather than welfare programs they believe could incentivize childbirth outside of marriage. In Congress, some Republicans have introduced proposals to expand the CTC and develop new tax credits for pregnant women.

Even conservative writers and mothers, such as Bethany Mandel, expressed skepticism regarding the adequacy of the proposed baby bonus. In a recent New York Post article, Mandel described the $5,000 baby bonus concept as feeling like a symbolic gesture in the face of a sinking reality.

As policymakers and advocates continue discussing birth rates, budget priorities, and reproductive rights, American families find themselves ensnared between clashing political agendas, all while their immediate support needs remain unmet.