President Donald Trump has declared himself the “fertilization president.” Vice President JD Vance wants a baby boom. The administration has pledged to put family first, yet so far, some conservatives believe they aren’t going far enough. This Washington Examiner series, Baby Boomers, will analyze the Trump administration’s early policies and pledges — if they have been successful or if they have thrown the baby out with the bath water. Part One is on whether a family czar is needed to advance Trump’s goals.
At a Women’s History Month event in March, President Donald Trump jokingly branded himself the “fertilization president” to the laughter of the group gathered at the White House.
“Fertilization. I’m still very proud of it, I don’t care,” he said. “I’ll be known as the fertilization president and that’s okay … I’ve been called much worse.”
Yet the lighthearted moment wasn’t a joke. In actuality, the Trump White House is ostensibly one of the most pro-family administrations in modern times.
Vice President JD Vance told attendees of the March for Life rally mere days after his inauguration: “I want more babies in the United States of America.”
Trump signed an executive order calling for policy recommendations to make in vitro fertilization affordable for families. The administration is prioritizing birth rates in doling out transportation projects. The White House was even considering a $5,000 cash baby bonus to women who gave birth.
But the reality of enacting policies that would boost the nation’s low birth rate and marriage rate is easier said than done.
Trump’s signature big beautiful bill, which the House recently passed, notably doesn’t include funding for IVF or the $5,000 baby bonus. Another provision in the bill penalizes single parents who receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits through stricter work requirements.
SENATE FACES PUSH TO DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD AFTER HOUSE VOTE
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if the reconciliation bill is passed, $723 billion in federal spending will be cut from Medicaid, and it will lead to an increase of 7.6 million uninsured people. The impact will likely be felt by the more than 37.3 million children who are currently enrolled in the federal-state health insurance program.
Yet, the bill does increase the Child Tax Credit to $2,500 until 2028, but only for parents who have Social Security numbers. And another provision nationalizes school vouchers for private education tuition and homeschooling programs.
Conservatives want more action
Social conservatives are energized by the efforts of the White House to raise the birth rate, but more work could be done, they said.
“Trump campaigned with promises of big, bold moves to help American families. But so far, we have seen just modest moves to help families from the Republicans in Congress and the White House,” said Brad Wilcox, a senior fellow at the Institute for Family Studies and director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia.
“Happy to see a bigger child tax credit, as well as support for adoption and school choice in this bill,” Wilcox continued. “But the child tax credit expansion just barely keeps up with inflation and the MAGA child accounts don’t help parents cover the costs of raising kids today. I’m hoping the Senate can take bigger and bolder moves to help make family life more affordable.”
Tucked into the reconciliation bill is a provision that would set aside $1,000 in an account for a child born during Trump’s second term. The “Money Accounts for Growth and Advancement”, renamed the Trump account, allows families to add up to $5,000 a year but is untouchable until the child turns 18.
Patrick T. Brown, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, claimed some of the provisions on Medicaid and SNAP in the bill couldn’t credibly be called pro-family. “I think it’s pretty hard to square that with being authentically pro-family if you’re going to be taking food off the table from kids who, you know, who are in elementary school and middle school,” Brown said.
The Trump administration stands by its pro-family stance
Despite the limitations, the White House defended Trump’s efforts to create strong families.
“President Trump is proudly implementing policies to uplift American families, from securing order border to keep violent criminals out of our communities, to lowering taxes and the cost of living,” said press secretary Karoline Leavitt, in a statement to the Washington Examiner.
“The President wants America to be a country where all children can safely grow up and achieve the American dream,” Leavitt added. “As a mother myself, I am proud to work for a president who is taking significant action to leave a better country for the next generation.”
Social conservatives have expressed some unease with federal funding for IVF, objecting to the morality of assisted conception, and outright anger at the Justice Department’s defense of mifepristone, the abortion pill.
Some advocates have pushed for the Trump administration to consider convening a White House summit solely focused on how to support American families or even appointing a “family czar.”
“We believe that a ‘Family Czar’ would help the administration push pro-family policies into law,” said Penny Nance, CEO and President of Concerned Women for America, in a statement to the Washington Examiner.
The U.S. birthrate hit a record low in 2023 when roughly 3.59 million babies were born in the U.S. In 2024, the birthrate slightly increased to over 3.6 million babies born in the U.S., or roughly 1.6 births per 1,000 women in 2024. It’s nowhere near the 2.1 births replacement rate needed to maintain the current U.S. population by births alone.
The marriage rate rebounded in 2022 after a decrease in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2022, there were 6.2 marriages per 1,000 population — the highest rate observed since 2018, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics.
Republicans split on whether White House should get involved
Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI) is one of the most vocal members of Congress pushing for the White House to appoint a family czar, preferably Vance, to help two-parent families have more children.
“I think, given his background, nobody could say that he is being mean-spirited or lacking compassion for families without a father at home,” said Grothman about Vance as a potential czar. “He’s also very intelligent, and intelligence is a great asset in any task.”
But a White House official told the Washington Examiner there are no plans for a family czar, instead claiming that it’s not necessary because Trump is already the most pro-family and pro-American household president in history.
Brown, the fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, previously lobbied for the Trump administration to hold a White House summit bringing together relevant stakeholders to discuss family and fertility.
“If they want to shine the light on family policy, they should really do a summit at the White House,” he said. “Invite a bunch of people in and talk about low birth rates, talk about low marriage rates, and what we can do from the federal and state level to make it easier to start a family.”
Not all conservatives are sold on the idea that the federal government should lead the charge on pro-family policies.
“I don’t think it’s the government’s job to have a family czar,” said Tim Chapman, president of the Advancing American Freedom. “I think what I’d like to see our federal government doing is creating the stability and the economic environment necessary for families to thrive.”
“If you create a federal family czar, it’s just more of the same,” Chapman added. “And I would like the federal government to divest more power and allow states to produce innovative policies that allow family flourishing in their states.”
Similarly, Father Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, was hesitant to call for a czar or a pro-family summit. “I think the best stance for pro-life groups and activists is to ask the question first of ourselves. Are we doing enough to reach out rather than asking, are they doing enough to reach out to us?” he said. “And I think that’s the more fruitful approach for the pro-life groups to take.”
CONSERVATIVES SPLIT OVER IVF AS WHITE HOUSE WEIGHS POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Why the White House may want to focus on other industries
Several experts who spoke with the Washington Examiner explained how other industries, such as housing, the job market, education, and Trump’s trade policies, also have a vast impact on whether or not marriage and birth rates increase.
“My own personal view on this is that the best incentive structure for encouraging more children and for encouraging family formation is a really, really good, positive, upwardly mobile job,” said Chapman. “And in a regulatory environment that allows for access to less expensive housing and less expensive goods. And I think that’s the name of the game here.”
There is the caveat that Trump’s trade policies and the ensuing financial uncertainty could contradict other efforts to help more Americans get married and have children.
Catherine Pakaluk, an economist at the Catholic University of America and mother of eight children, said in an interview that on the family front, it may be strategically wise for the Trump administration to move away from anti-abortion efforts and focus on issues such as school choice and housing.
“It is, simultaneously, from my research perspective, more effective. But also politically, I think it would be less alienating,” she said.
The Trump administration’s complicated handling of the antiabortion movement, including removing wording supporting a federal abortion ban from the Republican National Committee platform while embracing funding for IVF, reflects the debate on what exactly pro-family legislation means.
For some conservatives, that may mean policies that lead to religious, heterosexual married couples who conceive children naturally or adopt. For others, that ideology also includes medically assisted conception of children. The ex-DOGE leader Elon Musk’s brood of children, several of whom were conceived through IVF, is one notable example of the expanding meaning of a non-traditional family.
The administration “has wanted to free itself up from the pro-life commitment of the Republican Party, which is why the platform changed in the summer,” Pakaluk said. “I think Trump at least seems to think that you need both sides in the tent.”
