The movement unites âfamily valuesâ conservatives and tech bro rightwingers. Will this incoherent coalition hold?
Carter Sherman at The Guardian:
In his first address to the United States after becoming vice-president, JD Vance stood on stage and proclaimed: âI want more babies in the United States of America.â Weeks later, Donald Trump signed an executive order pledging support for in vitro fertilization, recognizing âthe importance of family formation and that our nationâs public policy must make it easier for loving and longing mothers and fathers to have childrenâ. In late January, a Department of Transportation memo directed the agency to prioritize projects that âgive preference to communities with marriage and birth rates higher than the national averageâ. And last week, it was reported that Elon Musk, the unelected head of the government-demolishing âdepartment of governmental efficiencyâ and a man who has said that the âcollapsing birth rate is the biggest danger civilization faces by farâ, had become a father of 14. Republicans have long heralded the importance of âfamily valuesâ. But in these developments, many see mounting signs of a controversial ideology at work: pronatalism.
Pronatalism is so contentious that people often struggle to agree on a definition. Pronatalism could be defined as the belief that having children is good. It could also be defined as the belief that having children is important to the greater good and that people should have babies on behalf of the state, because declining birth rates are a threat to its future. Perhaps most importantly, pronatalism could be defined as the belief that government policy should incentivize people to give birth. While people on the left might agree with some pronatalist priorities, pronatalism in the US is today ascendant on the right. It has become a key ideological plank in the bridge between tech bro rightwingers like Musk and more traditional, religious conservatives, like the speaker of the House, Mike Johnson â who once said in a House hearing that abortions were harming the economy by eliminating would-be workers. But there are plenty of widening cracks in that bridge and, by extension, Trumpâs incoherent coalition.
âHipster eugenicistsâ
In the US, interest in pronatalism has historically coincided with growing anxiety over changing gender norms and demographics, according to Laura Lovett, a University of Pittsburgh history professor and the author of the book Conceiving the Future: Pronatalism, Reproduction, and the Family in the United States, 1890-1930. In the 1920s, pronatalismâs prominence grew after women gained the right to vote, as people worried about women working and wielding power outside the home. âWhen Theodore Roosevelt uses the term ârace suicideâ, he actually blames women who are going to college for the first time for that eventual suicide of the right, white race. Thereâs this linkage between womenâs educational and aspirational futures and the declining birth rate,â Lovett said. âThere was this anxiety that white, native-born, middle-class women were having smaller families.â
Historically, US pronatalism was also tied to an interest in eugenics â and some of the more tech-minded, modern-day pronatalists do want to use breeding to fashion a better human race. Malcolm and Simone Collins, parents of four who have become standard-bearers for the burgeoning popularity of pronatalism among Silicon Valley venture capitalists, have championed âno-holds-barredâ medical research to engineer the âmass production of genetically selected humansâ. They have joked to Business Insider about making business cards declaring themselves âhipster eugenicistsâ â although they have also rejected the idea that they are performing eugenics, stressing that they think racism is âso dumbâ and that the only bloodlines they are altering are their own.
The Collinses, who support Trump, have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on in vitro fertilization (IVF) and screening their embryos for IQ, risk of depression and other markers. (Scientists arenât convinced that it is possible to screen embryos for IQ.) These kinds of practices â which the Collins have called âpolygenicsâ â draw a wedge between the Silicon Valley pronatalists who back Trump and his more traditional pronatalist supporters. The anti-abortion movement, which was critical to getting Trump elected in 2016, has long opposed IVF, largely because it can lead to unused or discarded embryos. In signing his pro-IVF executive order, Trump appears to be siding with the âtech rightâ (and the broader electorate, among which IVF remains extremely popular). When Musk recently brought his son X Ă A-Xii to the Oval Office, Trump called the four-year-old a âhigh-IQ individualâ.
âRestructuring societyâ
While the Collinses are avatars for the emerging pronatalist tech right, Lyman Stone is one of the highest-profile pronatalists from a more traditionally conservative background. âPronatalism has to be disciplined by a commitment to human liberty and human flourishing â and this is coming out of work on reproductive justice, basically. People have a right to have the families they want to have, and for some people, that means no family,â said Stone, a demographer who in 2024 established the Pronatalism Initiative at the right-leaning Institute for Family Studies. âThe focus of pronatalism, in my view, generally is not and certainly should not be on family gigantism, and instead should be on helping young people overcome the barriers and obstacles to romantic and family success in their life.â [...] Many of these policy proposals could comfortably fit into a left-leaning political platform â in fact, they may be more at home on such a platform than within todayâs Republican party. Although Vance said on the campaign trail that he would like to expand the child tax credit, a move that could cost trillions of dollars in federal spending, Republicans have instead committed to slashing the government budget by at least $1.5tn.
The Guardian takes a look at the pronatalist movement championed by right-wing figures such as J.D. Vance and Elon Musk.
