The dangers of pro-natalism in and beyond the White House

Ever since the beginning of his second administration earlier this year, President Trump’s Republican administration has taken strides towards far-right and fascist policies. Having deported US child citizens and allegedly innocent men with no criminal record to a maximum security El Salvadoran prison CECOT known for its flagrant human rights abuses, Trump has also taken to threatening funding for top universities like Harvard and Colombia, particularly targeting pro-Palestinian protestors. Trump’s disregard for human rights has been well-documented. As such, the US’ move towards authoritarianism seems imminent.

J.D. Vance’s ‘pro-family’ politics is a more subtle example of the US government straying into political territory reminiscent of early-1900s European fascism, advocating for “more babies in the United States of America”. In both Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, governments placed enormous emphasis on the creation of large families and the civilian’s duty to their family.

The authoritarian structure of government required more soldiers, more labourers, and more loyal citizens, resulting in the implementation of policies aiming to increase the birthrate. In Nazi Germany, the drive for more births was also based on the supremacist ideal of the Aryan race – Hitler wanted Aryan parents to have as many children as possible to increase the number of ‘pure’ Germans in the country. To this end, he created the ‘Ehrenkreuz der Deutschen Mutter’ – The Cross of Honour of the German Mother – in 1938. This medal was awarded in three tiers to mothers who had borne four, six, and eight children respectively, but only if the mother and father fit very strict conditions, the primary category being that they were Aryan.

Trump has embraced the far-right conspiracy of ‘replacement theory’, which believes in the existence of a plot to replace the white population of America with non-white immigrants

This may seem far removed from the American Vice President’s desire to encourage a large-scale baby boom, but the White House’s policies are rooted in the same logic. Trump has embraced the far-right conspiracy of ‘replacement theory’, which believes in the existence of a plot to replace the white population of America with non-white immigrants. The push for Americans to have more children, keeping up with the supposedly higher birth rate among non-white immigrant communities, is chillingly evocative of Hitler’s rationale behind the Cross of Honour.

In fact, certain pro-natalists have already proposed an American equivalent of the medal. Simone and Malcolm Collins, a Pennsylvanian couple at the forefront of the movement, claim to have the support of the White House in drafting an executive order to introduce a National Medal of Motherhood, for mothers of six or more.

It isn’t alarmist to argue that the introduction of such a movement endorsed by the White House – one that is almost identical to the pro-natalist policy of Nazi Germany – should be scaring people. The Cross of Honour was more than an award for particularly productive parents – it enforced a standard for the acceptable model of the family, the ideal woman, and racial supremacy. A National Medal of Motherhood would tell American women that their place is in the home, rearing children, while the man works, conveying a clear hierarchy within the family structure. The Medal would uphold to Americans that the ‘perfect’ family is the biological, the nuclear: one mother and one father leading the household. It leaves no room at all for the possibility of diverse family structures in and around the LGBTQIA+ community.

The nuclear family as a concept originated as far back as 1924 and was the primary example of the US family structure from the 1950s to the 1980s. It consists of married parents and their children living under one roof, and most often contrasts extended families, including step- and half-siblings, or multigenerational families, where grandparents may live in the same household. American television from the 1950s onwards reinforced the nuclear family hierarchy and gendered roles for family members. Same-sex parents, trans parents, and single parents, however, are not part of the ‘perfect family’ that the Trump administration is so anxious to return to.

While some modern definitions have expanded to include adopted offspring, the White House’s new push for a higher birth rate doesn’t bode well for non-traditional families in the US. At the end of his first term, Trump allowed adoption and foster agencies in South Carolina to deny same-sex couples the right to adopt, while currently, five states have introduced legislation to outlaw same-sex marriage once again.

Pro-natalism is, unfortunately, irrevocably entwined with the revocation and suppression of equal rights for LGBTQIA+ people

Trump has given pro-natalists greater leeway to campaign for anti-queer legislation in pursuit of higher birth rates. Many are in favour of reduced access to abortions and HRT, citing that it prevents the creation of new life, which would be disproportionately detrimental to LGBTQIA+ people and also ignores the immediate consequences for living adults and children who require access to reproductive healthcare. Seven Republican lawmakers condemned same-sex marriage earlier this year, claiming marriage must be between a man and a woman as a “necessity to preserve and grow our human race.”

Pro-natalism is, unfortunately, irrevocably entwined with the revocation and suppression of equal rights for LGBTQIA+ people. Should the movement towards nuclear families that produce as many children as possible gain more traction, it would provide justification to the right wing to target queer rights, all in the name of salvaging a plunging birth rate and keeping the human race alive. This argument, however, doesn’t hold up when viewed on a global scale.

The falling birth rate can be observed worldwide: from Sweden to Japan, fewer children are being born than the replacement rate, two-to-one. However, the global population is still growing, and rapidly. Studies predict sub-Saharan Africa will have a population of more than three billion by 2100, the same year that other, Western regions are predicted to have population crashes. The global population will peak at roughly 10 billion around the same time. Clearly, humanity is in no way nearing extinction. The fears of Vance, Musk, and other pro-natalists fall flat in the face of these numbers – arguably because that is not their true concern.

Their concern returns us again to the replacement theory. It’s not about all humans, it’s about keeping America predominantly white, and to that end, cisgender and heterosexual. Their legislation in response to an imagined crisis will have knock-on effects for women, people of colour, and queer people not just in America, but in the US’ entire sphere of influence, the UK included. In fact, it already has.

American influence on UK politics has been felt most keenly in the last year, as Reform UK’s Nigel Farage took inspiration from Trump’s campaign strategies and rally style. The two leaders share attitudes towards immigration and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) hiring policies. After Reform’s sweeping wins in the 2025 local elections, the Republican-esque party will see more and more influence in the British government in the coming years. Reform’s policy document shows a clear alignment with the Republican swing towards pro-natalism as well, aiming to “support marriage through the tax system” and encourage the nuclear family structure, with mothers providing primary care in the home.

Reform is not the only party susceptible to Trump’s political influence

In the wake of the UK Supreme Court’s ruling that the definition of a woman is determined by biological sex, and Vance’s demand that Downing Street revoke hate speech laws to secure a US trade deal, it is clear that Reform is not the only party susceptible to Trump’s political influence. Should Labour give in to such demands for the sake of economic growth, and safety from the potential of Trump’s detachment, it seems only inevitable that the UK will also head down a path of backwards progress. If the protection of marginalised groups is sacrificed to appease the White House, more demands will come – the rise of pro-natalism, then, may not be contained to certain members of the Trump administration but spread to the UK and beyond. This would certainly threaten the rights of queer people worldwide and must not be allowed to take root.