Natalist Nation
A relatively mundane memo sheds light on one of the Trump administration’s key policy objectives—family creation—and causes an uproar
The Department of Transportation, under Secretary Sean Duffy, has issued a directive prioritizing federal funding for communities with high marriage and birth rates, aligning with the Trump administration’s pro-natalist agenda and sparking debate over its implications for urban and diverse populations. While the policy reflects concerns over declining birth rates and economic sustainability, critics argue it selectively benefits rural, predominantly white communities while ignoring the demographic reality of an aging nation.
WASHINGTON—Just last week, buried in a seemingly banal memo from the Department of Transportation (DOT), Secretary Sean Duffy directed employees to prioritize federal funding for communities with high marriage and birth rates, setting off a small firestorm in the capital.
It read: "To the maximum extent permitted by law, DOT-supported or -assisted programs and activities, including without limitation, all DOT grants, loans, contracts, and DOT-supported or -assisted State contracts, shall prioritize projects and goals that ... mitigate the unique impacts of DOT programs, policies, and activities on families and family- specific difficulties, such as the accessibility of transportation to families with young children, and give preference to communities with marriage and birth rates higher than the national average (including in administering the Federal Transit Administration's Capital Investment Grant Program).”
Duffy’s DOT memo aligns with Trump’s pro-natal political and policy platform, reiterated by Vice President J.D. Vance at the National Right to Life March in Washington, D.C. “So let me say very simply: I want more babies in the United States of America,” he said. “I want more happy children in our country, and I want beautiful young men and women who are eager to welcome them into the world and eager to raise them.”
Decoding Demographics
Like most highly developed countries, the United States has a baby problem. Simply put, we do not have enough babies to maintain our population, and at this point, the nation is only growing through a combination of natural births and immigration. Moreover, this precipitous drop in births is forcing our leaders to confront some long-known demographic challenges, which are quickly turning into social and economic ones.
Marriage ages and rates are big drivers of population growth. The median age for first marriages has steadily risen since 1956, the year with the lowest recorded median marriage age: 22.5 for men and 20.1 for women. In 2023, the median age of a first marriage was 30.2 for men and 28.4 for women. In 1949, nearly eight out of ten households contained married couples; however, 73 years later, it was less than half.
When people marry later, the window for having children is shortened, directly impacting the number of babies born. The national birth rate, or the average number of babies each woman has, has been dropping for years. It is now at 1.66, far below the 2.1 needed to maintain the current population, much less grow it. The biggest birthrate declines have been among young women — teens and those in their 20s.
Given that the vast majority of federal programs are predicated on near-constant population growth, without a higher birth rate, federal programs, including transportation, are in peril. The government is simply spending too much and not bringing in enough revenue. When birth rates fall too far, governments must contend with cutting or reallocating programs and services, raising taxes, or modernizing systems and public policies to meet new realities.
On the House floor last week, Rep. David Schweikert, R-Ariz., raised the alarm and implored Congress to avert what he called 'financial armageddon.' “Almost 100 percent of the next 10 years of debt is interest and demographics … almost all of it is Medicare,” he said. “We did not set aside enough money, and we’ve been unwilling to modernize.”
Picking Winners
Historically, marriage and birth rates are higher in rural areas than urban ones. However, the vast majority of marriages and births occur in cities. So, in practice, DOT’s new policy would disproportionately positively impact smaller rural communities while penalizing urban ones, but that’s only part of the story.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, the top five states with the highest marriage rates in the U.S. are Nevada, Hawaii, Montana, Utah and the District of Columbia. The top five states with the highest birth rates are South Dakota, Alaska, Nebraska, Texas and Louisiana.
Marriage and birth rates also vary greatly by metropolitan area, with some of the highest birth rates, for example, in Hinesville, Georgia; Jacksonville, North Carolina; Odessa, Texas; and Midland, Texas. Indianapolis, Indiana, has the highest birth rate among major U.S. cities.
There’s also great variation among racial groups. According to the Pew Research Center in 2019, “While 57 percent of white adults and 63 percent of Asian adults are married, fewer than half of Hispanic (48 percent) and black adults (33 percent) are.” The March of Dimes illustrates racial differences in births: “Of all live births in the United States during 2021-2023 (average), 25.0 percent were Hispanic, 50.9 percent were White, 14.0 percent were Black, 0.7 percent were American Indian/Alaska Native and 6.3 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander.”
South Dakota and Utah are the only two states with marriage and birth rates higher than the national average. They also both have predominantly white populations, which raises questions about whether this policy shift is motivated by something more than proactive planning.
It would be easy to miss or even dismiss Secretary Duffy’s memo in the barrage of executive orders and agency proclamations during the first few weeks of the second Trump administration. However, seemingly small policy shifts and statements outside the White House's bluster could remake the U.S. for years. Oftentimes, it’s the little things that could impact or signal what’s to come, especially, in this case, when other salient demographic trends, like the aging of our population, are conveniently ignored.
“We know the stats. America is aging, and over 11,000 of us turn 65 each day,” shared Leanne J. Clark-Shirley, PhD, President & CEO at American Society on Aging. For context, each day, there are fewer than 10,000 natural births in the U.S. “That means older people will be seeking care, working longer, traveling, and engaging in their communities at a scale we haven't seen before,” she said. “If the administration is turning to macro demographic trends to inform transportation policy, perhaps it would be helpful to focus on the remarkable growth of our aging population, too.”