In April 2025, the New York Times reported that the White House was reviewing ways to increase the national birth rate in response to it reaching historic lows. One of the ideas mentioned was an economic incentive of a $5,000 “baby bonus” post-delivery.
While the government should financially support people and families with infants and small children, this proposal misses the mark by a wide margin. It fails to acknowledge and address the shortcomings of U.S. socioeconomic policy, the experiences and challenges of the average American, and how reproductive decisions are made.
Why has the birth rate declined?
According to the Pew Research Center, the main reasons people do not have children include “concerns about the state of the world.” Worry about the future is at the forefront among people of reproductive age, with 43 percent listing this as a factor in their decision making. Another 30 percent say they are specifically concerned about the environment. High on the list of concerns for people not having children is also their inability to afford having a child. With a lack of a national child care system, policies that ensure people can take paid leave to care for themselves and their loved ones, a minimum wage that does not cover the basic cost of living, and the increasing costs of higher education, it is not surprising that people of reproductive age in the United States feel concerned about economic factors. Earlier economic downturns, such as the United States experienced in 2008, also decreased the birth rate.
High on the list of concerns for people not having children is also their inability to afford having a child.
The continued decrease in pregnancies to teenagers under the age of 19 also contributes to the decreasing birth rate. Pew also noted that some people decide not to become parents because they simply are not interested in raising children, or would prefer to do other things. For example, as more women choose to wait to become a parent—or choose not to parent at all—it enables them to further their education and widen their career choices.
Why does the birth rate matter?
Various economic models advocate for a replacement fertility rate of two children per woman, for a variety of reasons, but mostly to sustain economic growth and manage the ratio of working adults to dependents such as children and retirees. Currently, the U.S. birth rate is 1.62 children per woman and falling.
On a global scale, the narrative has been that there are too many people on the planet, with demographers blaming the “Global South” and non-white nations for the economic plights of their countries. At a national scale, countries have at various times tried to either lower their birth rate to enhance economic development or increase it to ensure there are enough workers to support an aging generation. Now, the Trump administration seems to be taking the United States down a shaky path of pronatalism—one that prioritizes increasing the number of children born to married, white, heterosexual couples. It is not far-fetched to say that this path eventually leads to eugenics.
Population manipulation is cited as necessary to create thriving economies that are capable of caring for all their citizens. This sounds good in theory, but in practice it becomes clear that any demographic manipulation without social, economic, and educational efforts to support residents is just population control, not betterment.
Regardless of demographic concerns, government is meant to support its citizens in living healthy, productive lives. The Trump administration seems unaware that a healthy and educated populace makes for a more economically productive and thriving society; or maybe they don’t care. Instead of improving access to health care and basic education, they have made potentially disastrous cuts to the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and they continue to threaten cuts to Medicaid and Medicare. And by toying with global trade (which affects not only the cost of goods but also jobs), they have made it more difficult for families to afford the resources they need. Within this context, increasing the birth rate seems ill-thought-out.
Yes, giving cash to moms can make a difference.
It is well known that in a capitalist economy, money matters for health. Over the past decade, research projects and pilot programs have sought to specifically understand how providing cash assistance during pregnancy and postpartum can improve perinatal and infant health outcomes. Sustained cash assistance and universal basic income (also known as guaranteed income) is more likely to set families up for long-term success than throwing $5,000 their way post-delivery.
First, $5,000 is barely enough to cover even just the hospital bill for a vaginal birth. Second, families need a variety of resources during pregnancy to increase their chances of having a healthy and successful live birth. Not to mention, this approach begs the question of what happens for families that experience pregnancy loss and stillbirth. And let’s not forget that this is the same administration that has directly attacked access to reproductive health care—the same care that is often needed to manage pregnancy loss or facilitate pregnancy through in-vitro fertilization (IVF). Cutting a check once moms give birth discounts the help they might need along the way.
All families need dignified access to care, services, and financial resources to achieve and sustain their optimal wellbeing—especially when having and raising children. Physical and financial access to high-quality health care is a top priority, along with adequate nutrition, safe living environments free from toxins, clean water, and amenable working conditions. One might think these are easily accessible and widely available in the United States, but that is not always the case. In fact, most Americans experience poverty and the hardships that come along with it; so, cash for moms certainly would help.
Various programs have sought to investigate how guaranteed income could shape maternal and child health, while also meeting program participants’ immediate need for financial support. Expecting Justice, a collaborative based in San Francisco, California, launched the Abundant Birth Project in an effort to assess how guaranteed income could improve birth outcomes. The project was designed in collaboration with the local community to address stressors during pregnancy, including the high cost of living, housing, employment leave, mother and infant health, and negative experiences with existing social service programs.
Providing cash instead of restricted benefits allows individuals and families to decide where to spend the money.
Providing cash instead of restricted benefits allows individuals and families to decide where to spend the money. Of course, this raises questions around trust, acknowledged by the Abundant Birth Project researchers as being largely rooted in racism. In the United States, people mistrust how low-income people, and especially low-income Black women, spend money. That mistrust gave rise to the false Welfare Queen stereotype, which villainized Black women battling poverty. Mistrust also led to social service programs nickel and diming families so that they ultimately barely meet basic needs.
In Mississippi—one of the states with the highest poverty rates and worst maternal and infant health outcomes—the Mother’s Magnolia Trust provides a year of unrestricted cash income to Black mothers living in affordable housing. Program evaluations revealed that participants experienced less stress, more self-care, increased ability to pay bills on time, and better access to daily needs such as transportation and medication, among other things.
There are similar guaranteed income initiatives popping up around the country as advocates and local governments attempt to help families navigate systemic inequities. The City of Birmingham ran the Embrace Mothers pilot where they provided $375 a month to single-women-led households. In New York City, The Bridge Project provides low-income mothers $1,000 per month for 1,000 days postpartum.
Cash-based guaranteed income over a sustained period helps families live healthier lives. It serves as a life preserver while people navigate systemic challenges caused by poor social and economic policy.
But families need more than just cash to thrive.
Money matters, but policies that make it easier for people to build the families they want might matter more in the long-term. For decades, Americans have been begging for interventions that make their lives easier. Yet, the same government that can find billions of dollars to wage war cannot manage to find or justify funding that would set the nation on a sustainable path of progress.
Instead of focusing on the birth rate, the Trump administration and state governments should do what people have been asking for:
- ensure guaranteed access to affordable, high-quality, comprehensive health care;
- establish adequate paid leave for all, including parental, family, and medical leave and sick time;
- make free child care available for all, where children are safe, loved, and learning;
- provide free, high-quality education from early childhood through higher education for all;
- create good jobs with fair compensation and benefits;
- lower housing and rent prices;
- lower prices for basic goods and food;
- ensure affordable and easy access to the full range of methods and services that maximize people’s ability to make autonomous decisions about their fertility and parenting (including but not limited to contraception, abortion, miscarriage management, IVF, surrogacy, and adoption);
- make improvements to existing social service programs; and
- issue strong environmental regulations and protections.
Destructive policies take as much time and energy to create and pass as positive policies that work for people. That is to say, all of the above is within reason and feasible. Other countries, such as Sweden, have shown that not only is it doable, but it also improves quality of life. Funds for these investments in other countries have come from taxpayers. In the United States, if the ultra-wealthy were taxed similarly to the middle class, there would be enough tax revenue to cover much of what is proposed above.
People will still choose what’s best for them.
Regardless of whether family-friendly policies manifest, there will still be people who choose not to become pregnant, not to give birth, and not to parent. Their decisions must be respected and they must have guaranteed access to the appropriate resources to live out those decisions.
Giving money to moms is a good idea, but so is investing in the health and wellbeing of moms and children through systemic change. That kind of investment will move us forward. Simply incentivizing women to give birth in exchange for what is—in the grand scheme of birthing and raising a child in a society that does not care for moms or children—a small sum will only take us backward.
Tags: donald trump, birth rate, baby bonus
The Government Should Give Moms Money, But Not Only After Childbirth
In April 2025, the New York Times reported that the White House was reviewing ways to increase the national birth rate in response to it reaching historic lows. One of the ideas mentioned was an economic incentive of a $5,000 “baby bonus” post-delivery.
While the government should financially support people and families with infants and small children, this proposal misses the mark by a wide margin. It fails to acknowledge and address the shortcomings of U.S. socioeconomic policy, the experiences and challenges of the average American, and how reproductive decisions are made.
Why has the birth rate declined?
According to the Pew Research Center, the main reasons people do not have children include “concerns about the state of the world.” Worry about the future is at the forefront among people of reproductive age, with 43 percent listing this as a factor in their decision making. Another 30 percent say they are specifically concerned about the environment. High on the list of concerns for people not having children is also their inability to afford having a child. With a lack of a national child care system, policies that ensure people can take paid leave to care for themselves and their loved ones, a minimum wage that does not cover the basic cost of living, and the increasing costs of higher education, it is not surprising that people of reproductive age in the United States feel concerned about economic factors. Earlier economic downturns, such as the United States experienced in 2008, also decreased the birth rate.
The continued decrease in pregnancies to teenagers under the age of 19 also contributes to the decreasing birth rate. Pew also noted that some people decide not to become parents because they simply are not interested in raising children, or would prefer to do other things. For example, as more women choose to wait to become a parent—or choose not to parent at all—it enables them to further their education and widen their career choices.
Why does the birth rate matter?
Various economic models advocate for a replacement fertility rate of two children per woman, for a variety of reasons, but mostly to sustain economic growth and manage the ratio of working adults to dependents such as children and retirees. Currently, the U.S. birth rate is 1.62 children per woman and falling.
On a global scale, the narrative has been that there are too many people on the planet, with demographers blaming the “Global South” and non-white nations for the economic plights of their countries. At a national scale, countries have at various times tried to either lower their birth rate to enhance economic development or increase it to ensure there are enough workers to support an aging generation. Now, the Trump administration seems to be taking the United States down a shaky path of pronatalism—one that prioritizes increasing the number of children born to married, white, heterosexual couples. It is not far-fetched to say that this path eventually leads to eugenics.
Population manipulation is cited as necessary to create thriving economies that are capable of caring for all their citizens. This sounds good in theory, but in practice it becomes clear that any demographic manipulation without social, economic, and educational efforts to support residents is just population control, not betterment.
Regardless of demographic concerns, government is meant to support its citizens in living healthy, productive lives. The Trump administration seems unaware that a healthy and educated populace makes for a more economically productive and thriving society; or maybe they don’t care. Instead of improving access to health care and basic education, they have made potentially disastrous cuts to the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and they continue to threaten cuts to Medicaid and Medicare. And by toying with global trade (which affects not only the cost of goods but also jobs), they have made it more difficult for families to afford the resources they need. Within this context, increasing the birth rate seems ill-thought-out.
Yes, giving cash to moms can make a difference.
It is well known that in a capitalist economy, money matters for health. Over the past decade, research projects and pilot programs have sought to specifically understand how providing cash assistance during pregnancy and postpartum can improve perinatal and infant health outcomes. Sustained cash assistance and universal basic income (also known as guaranteed income) is more likely to set families up for long-term success than throwing $5,000 their way post-delivery.
First, $5,000 is barely enough to cover even just the hospital bill for a vaginal birth. Second, families need a variety of resources during pregnancy to increase their chances of having a healthy and successful live birth. Not to mention, this approach begs the question of what happens for families that experience pregnancy loss and stillbirth. And let’s not forget that this is the same administration that has directly attacked access to reproductive health care—the same care that is often needed to manage pregnancy loss or facilitate pregnancy through in-vitro fertilization (IVF). Cutting a check once moms give birth discounts the help they might need along the way.
All families need dignified access to care, services, and financial resources to achieve and sustain their optimal wellbeing—especially when having and raising children. Physical and financial access to high-quality health care is a top priority, along with adequate nutrition, safe living environments free from toxins, clean water, and amenable working conditions. One might think these are easily accessible and widely available in the United States, but that is not always the case. In fact, most Americans experience poverty and the hardships that come along with it; so, cash for moms certainly would help.
Various programs have sought to investigate how guaranteed income could shape maternal and child health, while also meeting program participants’ immediate need for financial support. Expecting Justice, a collaborative based in San Francisco, California, launched the Abundant Birth Project in an effort to assess how guaranteed income could improve birth outcomes. The project was designed in collaboration with the local community to address stressors during pregnancy, including the high cost of living, housing, employment leave, mother and infant health, and negative experiences with existing social service programs.
Providing cash instead of restricted benefits allows individuals and families to decide where to spend the money. Of course, this raises questions around trust, acknowledged by the Abundant Birth Project researchers as being largely rooted in racism. In the United States, people mistrust how low-income people, and especially low-income Black women, spend money. That mistrust gave rise to the false Welfare Queen stereotype, which villainized Black women battling poverty. Mistrust also led to social service programs nickel and diming families so that they ultimately barely meet basic needs.
In Mississippi—one of the states with the highest poverty rates and worst maternal and infant health outcomes—the Mother’s Magnolia Trust provides a year of unrestricted cash income to Black mothers living in affordable housing. Program evaluations revealed that participants experienced less stress, more self-care, increased ability to pay bills on time, and better access to daily needs such as transportation and medication, among other things.
There are similar guaranteed income initiatives popping up around the country as advocates and local governments attempt to help families navigate systemic inequities. The City of Birmingham ran the Embrace Mothers pilot where they provided $375 a month to single-women-led households. In New York City, The Bridge Project provides low-income mothers $1,000 per month for 1,000 days postpartum.
Cash-based guaranteed income over a sustained period helps families live healthier lives. It serves as a life preserver while people navigate systemic challenges caused by poor social and economic policy.
But families need more than just cash to thrive.
Money matters, but policies that make it easier for people to build the families they want might matter more in the long-term. For decades, Americans have been begging for interventions that make their lives easier. Yet, the same government that can find billions of dollars to wage war cannot manage to find or justify funding that would set the nation on a sustainable path of progress.
Instead of focusing on the birth rate, the Trump administration and state governments should do what people have been asking for:
Destructive policies take as much time and energy to create and pass as positive policies that work for people. That is to say, all of the above is within reason and feasible. Other countries, such as Sweden, have shown that not only is it doable, but it also improves quality of life. Funds for these investments in other countries have come from taxpayers. In the United States, if the ultra-wealthy were taxed similarly to the middle class, there would be enough tax revenue to cover much of what is proposed above.
People will still choose what’s best for them.
Regardless of whether family-friendly policies manifest, there will still be people who choose not to become pregnant, not to give birth, and not to parent. Their decisions must be respected and they must have guaranteed access to the appropriate resources to live out those decisions.
Giving money to moms is a good idea, but so is investing in the health and wellbeing of moms and children through systemic change. That kind of investment will move us forward. Simply incentivizing women to give birth in exchange for what is—in the grand scheme of birthing and raising a child in a society that does not care for moms or children—a small sum will only take us backward.
Tags: donald trump, birth rate, baby bonus