F**k Them Kids: The White House's Pro-Natalist Agenda
The government wants us all to be more like Nick Cannon but are baby bonuses enough for a baby boom?
Welcome to a new shade of pink—and no, I’m not talking about the Millennial Pink of the 2010s, with its Girl Boss energy and power suits. I’m talking about today’s "Soft Life" pink, which, when pushed too far, slips into trad-wife aesthetics, hyper-dependence on men, and maybe even a shift in political beliefs… who knows? It makes you wonder: is the marketing and content women consume enough to make motherhood seem as appealing as being a stay-at-home wife or girlfriend?
Let’s Digest!
This week, The New York Times published an article outlining the new incentives American women can expect for repopulating the country.This push is happening at a time when conversations about declining birth rates are gaining steam, as evidenced by the recent Natal Con in Austin — a conference where attendees openly discussed everything from declining fertility rates to the controversial idea of “anchor babies.” It turns out the White House is focused on a very specific brand of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion — one where demographics become merit-based, motherhood is framed as patriotic service, and the perks are framed like hazard pay for the front lines of a cultural war.
Some of the proposed "kickbacks" include:
A $5,000 "Baby Bonus" for every American mother after childbirth
Reserving 30% of Fulbright Scholarships exclusively for married American mothers
Government-funded menstrual education classes aimed at teaching women how to optimize fertility
As we all know the 2020’s have been somewhat of a cultural war in America, this divide ushered in by the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Which is the perfect ally hoop to the new pro-natalist kickbacks the White House seems to be concocting.
Your Starter
Pro-Natalism ≠ Pro-Life (But They’re Distant Cousins)
Let's get clear on terms: pro-natalism is just a fancy way of saying pro-birth, pro-reproduction, pro-societal replenishing. It's a key framework for understanding 2025's political climate, especially the shifting policies aimed at American women.
Pro-life is about banning abortions, rooted in religious or moralistic control over individual choices.
Pro-natalism is about incentivizing birth for the sake of national economic and cultural survival.
One tries to control behavior through restriction; the other tries to encourage behavior through incentives.
And there’s a reason they’re panicking:
In 1960, American women had on average 3.3 children.
In 2022, that number dropped to 1.5 — well below the replacement rate of 2.1
Pro-natalism simply encourages population growth and sees it as an integral part of not only economic, social and technological growth but also necessary for maintenance. Pro-natalism is often seen as the antidote to the anxieties attached to having children. Pro-Life dogma is often met with critiques of policies and protections, having children is pushed onto families but the support they receive often lack luster. People are pro-life until the baby is born, once brought earth side mothers are often left with a lack of support, minimal maternity leave and low access to feasible childcare. Hence why I would argue that these new initiatives are more pro-natalist than pro-life, whilst they lack sustainability they still acknowledge an aspect of giving life that the pro-life movement hardly does – the economics of birth. Because let’s be honest the new Loro Piano stroller costs more than any of these proposed “benefits” and childcare is even more.
Ready for The Main Course?
Lets talk about the “Economics of Birth”…
The most important aspect of pro-natalism is of course social reproduction. Social Reproduction is the act of not just recreating but also raising the next generation — this the hidden engine of any functioning society.
When we think about capitalism, we often focus narrowly on production: the goods made, the profits earned, the labor exchanged. But who is doing the producing? And how did they get here?
American philosopher Nancy Fraser expands on Karl Marx’s concept of capitalism by introducing the idea of social reproduction as its "hidden abode." Marx emphasized the visible structures that sustain capitalism — labor relations, class divisions, and profit cycles. But Fraser reveals a deeper, often overlooked foundation: the societal work necessary to produce and sustain a labor force in the first place.
Social reproduction refers to the regeneration of not just the population, but socially conditioned, economically productive individuals — a task historically assigned to women (whether that be mothers or teachers). It includes not only childbirth, but also the unpaid emotional labor, caregiving, and socialization needed to maintain the next generation of workers. This labor is essential for capitalism to function, yet it remains undervalued, invisible, and excluded from formal economic accounting.
By framing social reproduction as capitalism’s hidden abode, Fraser shows how gender inequality and the exploitation of women's unpaid labor are not accidents of the system — they are built into its very architecture. Without the continuous, largely invisible work of mothers and caregivers, the workforce would collapse, and with it, the capitalist economy.
Recognizing the economic value of social reproduction does not have to be a rejection of capitalism in favor of another system. Instead, it offers a broader understanding: economics is not separate from society — it is society. Economics is a social science, structured by human relationships, labor, and care. By making the hidden visible, we open up opportunities to formally value and invest in the work that sustains life itself. There is vast economic potential in recognizing and supporting this traditionally unpaid labor — not only as a matter of justice, but as a strategy for creating a more resilient and sustainable economy.
However, this brings us to the core contradiction of contemporary pro-natalism: it asks women to participate in the regeneration of society without addressing the material conditions that make doing so undesirable. Incentives like cash bonuses or educational scholarships do little to change the fact that motherhood — and the labor of care — remains largely unpaid, unsupported, and socially undervalued. Declining birth rates are not just a crisis of personal choice; they are a reflection of a system that demands everything from women while offering little in return.
Pro-natalist policies, without a corresponding transformation of the social order, amount to little more than glorified labor recruitment for a system that has long depended on invisible, uncompensated work. Until the deeper economic and social realities are addressed — until caregiving and motherhood are treated not as private burdens but as public goods — no amount of incentives will solve the problem. Women are not declining to have children because they are selfish or shortsighted; they are refusing to sign a social contract that no longer serves them.
Understanding pro-natalism and the economics of birth through Fraser’s lens forces us to recognize social regeneration as an economic activity — one that creates real value while being systematically devalued. From this perspective, pro-natalist incentives reveal an anxious attempt to renew a "social contract" that is increasingly being questioned. After all, what happens when people — especially women — refuse to silently uphold an economy that refuses to support them in return?
Your Side Dish: A Brief Study on East Asia
Let’s look at Japan and South Korea — two countries that have become case studies in the challenges of declining birth rates.
Japan is particularly notorious for its aggressive pro-natalist policies, even creating a national holiday ("Beloved Wives Day") to encourage more couples to have children. Over the years, the Japanese government has offered everything from cash bonuses for new parents to subsidized childcare and parental leave incentives. South Korea has implemented similar programs, offering monthly child allowances and even free fertility treatments.
And yet, it’s not working.
Despite spending billions on pro-birth incentives, both Japan and South Korea continue to see record-low fertility rates— with South Korea’s rate hitting 0.72 births per woman in 2023, the lowest ever recorded globally. Japan isn't far behind, with a fertility rate of 1.26. (For context, a stable population requires about 2.1 births per woman.)
The reason money alone isn’t solving the crisis?
Because across borders barriers to having children are not just financial. They’re deeply structural:
Skyrocketing living costs (housing, education, healthcare)
Crushing work cultures (long hours, limited work-life balance)
Severe lack of affordable childcare
Persistent gender inequality (where parenting duties fall overwhelmingly on women)
And most importantly the increasing rates of Trash Men (trash as an adjective not a noun)
Here’s a clip from an episode of Iyanla Fix My Life showcasing Jay a father of 34 children
In short: financial bonuses can’t fix social systems that make childrearing feel impossible.
The economic consequences are already rippling outward. When fewer babies are born, fewer workers enter the labor force. Yet, the aging population — with longer life expectancies — continues to grow, straining pensions, healthcare systems, and social services.
Fewer workers → fewer people paying into pension systems → heavier burdens on the young
Shrinking workforce → slower GDP growth
Slower economy → less business investment in infrastructure, housing, manufacturing
It becomes a feedback loop of contraction.
With fewer young families, the demand for new housing drops. Real estate development — a key driver of capital growth — slows down. There’s less need for new schools, fewer kids to fill classrooms, and declining consumption of children’s goods (clothes, books, supplies).
Real estate, once a pillar of economic expansion, loses momentum. Construction slows, materials aren't purchased, workers aren't hired, and entire local economies lose the ripple effect that building a home, school, or hospital can generate.
In Japan, "ghost towns" and abandoned rural schools have become increasingly common. In South Korea, government-funded matchmaking programs have been launched — a desperate bid to boost marriage and birth rates — but they have little effect against the backdrop of a punishing economy and ingrained gender norms.
Ultimately, the East Asian example shows that without addressing the deeper cultural and economic factors that make parenthood unappealing or unsustainable, pro-natalist incentives are little more than a band-aid on a sinking ship.
East Asia’s struggles show that pro-natalist policies, when isolated to just financial incentives, fail to address the root causes of declining birth rates. The White House's pro-natalist agenda could face similar challenges unless it moves beyond cash bonuses and starts tackling the cost of living, workplace culture, and gender inequality that shape family decisions. Without a more comprehensive, structural approach, the U.S. will likely see the same stagnation that East Asia is grappling with.Dessert To End Your Meal
Most of the critiques to The White House pro-natalist agenda have a domestic lens, basically analyzing these policies as ways to increase birth rates amoungst white women as a means to combat the demographic shift in America– basically the fact that America is getting browner. While that is an important analysis in this day and age, I think the concern is more global than domestic. When we look at developing countries their birth rates are significantly higher than the West.
If the West continues to face demographic decline — combined with stagnating workforces, shrinking populations, and aging citizens — it risks losing its hegemonic position not just in economics, but in culture, technology, and politics. Ultimately, the rise of Developing Countries youthful populations could reframe the global hierarchy, and the West may need to adapt quickly, focusing on fostering innovation, embracing multiculturalism, and rethinking the role of labor and social structures in order to maintain its relevance in a rapidly changing world.Who knows maybe Bangalore, Lagos, Mexico City, or Jakarta could be the new Silicon Valley.
Thanks For Consuming !
Phia
“Each Day Gets Better”
Off the Secret Menu:
Okay! So this going to sound crazy but I truly think that this may be likely. I don’t think the whole robot thing is the new frontier of human like technology but rather using technology to create actual humans. As these demographic challenges continue to unfold, it raises the question of how societies will adapt to the shrinking workforce and growing dependency ratios. We already see technological advancements that blur the lines between biology and artificial intelligence, and it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that we could eventually see a future where AI plays a role in artificial reproduction. Maybe the next thing we’ll see is AI baby farms–technologically advanced facilities designed to produce babies to fill the gaps in our declining populations.
References:
Who Made Adam Smith Dinner, Katrine Marçal