SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
snap
Pushing to Eviscerate Head Start and SNAP, Trump Wants to Give Parents Medals for Having More Kids
Republicans, said one feminist writer, "don't care about making the world better, safer, or healthier for American families and children. They just want women to have more babies."
Apr 23, 2025
Political observers have warned that U.S. President Donald Trump has spent his first months in office "flooding the zone"—unleashing a torrent of executive actions and Republican proposals meant to overwhelm his opponents while furthering his right-wing agenda, including pushes to slash healthcare for more than 36 million children, eliminate funding for early childhood education, and weaken environmental justice initiatives.
But new reporting this week revealed that while taking significant actions that are expected to directly harm millions of children—and make the cost of living higher for parents across the country—White House officials have been considering a range of proposals aimed at encouraging people to have more children.
As The New York Times reported Monday, White House aides have met in recent weeks with policy experts and advocates for boosting U.S. birth rates, which have been declining since 2007.
Simone and Malcolm Collins, activists who founded Pronatalist.org, which they describe as "the first pronatalist organization in the world," told the Times that they have sent multiple draft executive orders to the White House, including one that would bestow a "National Medal of Motherhood" on women who have six children or more—a scheme with history in numerous fascist regimes, including those of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin.
Other proposals aides have discussed would reserve 30% of Fulbright scholarships for people who are married or have children; grant a $5,000 "baby bonus" to families after they have a baby; and fund programs that educate women on their menstrual cycles so they can use "natural family planning" and determine when they are able to conceive.
"Just so we're clear: Instead of teaching kids about birth control and sexual health, the government would fund programs that teach little girls how to get pregnant," wrote Jessica Valenti at the Substack newsletter Abortion, Every Day.
The latter proposal would likely be offered without offering women any information about contraception or other comprehensive sex education, which President Donald Trump vehemently opposed in his first term.
The administration's "pronatalist" push has been steadily building since before Trump won the presidency. During the campaign last year, Vice President JD Vance provoked an uproar when he doubled down on his comments from 2021 when he had said the Democratic Party was run by "childless cat ladies." He said last summer that people without biological children "don't really have a direct stake in" the future and defended his previous remarks that the government should "punish the things that we think are bad"—meaning not having children.
"For years, proposals and debates have separated having children from raising children. But parents aren't dumb. They'll look around and ask whether this is a world where it's good to have children."
Vance's claim that the Democratic Party is "anti-family and anti-child" was based largely on his belief that politicians on the left are too negative about the future—frequently expressing concern about the scientific consensus that continuing to extract fossil fuels, which Trump has promised to ramp up, will cause more frequent and devastating extreme climate events.
Since Trump took office, he has pledged to be a "fertilization president"—touting his support for in vitro fertilization even as federal researchers in reproductive technology were dismissed from their jobs—and his transportation secretary, Sean Duffy, told staffers to prioritize infrastructure projects in areas with high birth and marriage rates.
But the Republican Party, including Trump, has long scoffed at concrete policy proposals meant to make raising children—not just birthing them—more accessible for American families.
The Michigan Republican Party penned a memo in 2023 saying a paid family leave proposal was a "ridiculous idea" akin to "summer break for adults," and a budget proposal by Trump in 2018 claimed to require states to provide paid parental leave, but it was derided as "phony and truly dangerous" by one policy expert.
Senate Republicans last year blocked legislation that would have helped lift 500,000 children out of poverty by expanding eligibility for the child tax credit.
According to a leaked draft for the Health and Human Services Department's budget, Trump is now proposing eliminating federal funding for Head Start, which provides early childhood education and other support services for low-income children and their families, helping nearly 40 million children since it began six decades ago.
Bruce Lesley, president of First Focus on Children, said of the proposed cuts to Head Start last week that it was "shocking to see an administration consider a proposal that will impose such widespread harm on children."
"Rarely has there been such a clear, targeted attack on children," said Lesley. "Parents already have trouble finding available childcare and early learning programs, and even when they do, they struggle to afford them. The average annual cost of center-based childcare for an infant is over $15,000, more than in-state college tuition in many states. And who has the least access and greatest financial challenges to care? The children served by Head Start.
Meanwhile, the federal budget proposal passed by House Republicans earlier this month would help pay for "huge tax giveaways for wealthy households and businesses," said the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, by cutting health coverage for 72 million people who rely on Medicaid and food assistance for an estimated 13.8 million children who receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.
Responding to the reports of Trump's potential "pronatalist" proposals, Ellen Galinsky, president of the Families and Work Institute, told the Institute for Public Accuracy that the White House "can't just encourage people to have children. You have to think about what happens to those children after they're born."
"The countries that have been more successful in [raising children] have given family allowances, parental leave, and focused on who will teach and take care of children," said Galinsky. "The more children you have, the more likely it is you'll need to work and bring in a salary. Do parents have flexibility at their workplace?"
"For years, proposals and debates have separated having children from raising children," she added. "But parents aren't dumb. They'll look around and ask whether this is a world where it's good to have children."
Republicans' proposed cuts to essential services for families demonstrate that they "don't care about making the world better, safer, or healthier for American families and children," wrote Valenti. "They just want women to have more babies."
"What happens after that?" she added. "They couldn't care less."
Keep ReadingShow Less
House GOP Approves Economic Attack on Poor to Fund 'Big Payout' for Billionaires
"Republicans want to give away trillions of dollars to the richest people in our country," said Rep. Rashida Tlaib, "and they want to pay for it by taking food away from hungry children and letting people die from a lack of healthcare coverage."
Apr 10, 2025
In a party-line vote, House Republicans on Thursday approved a budget blueprint that sets the stage for the GOP to pass another round of tax cuts for the rich, paid for in part by slashing Medicaid, federal nutrition assistance, and other critical programs.
The final vote was 216 to 214, with two Republicans—Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Victoria Spartz of Indiana—and every Democrat opposing the measure, which now must be converted into legislation.
The budget reconciliation process that Republicans are using for their sweeping bill means it can pass with a simple majority in both chambers of Congress.
"Republicans are ramming through a budget that includes $880 billion in cuts to Medicaid and at least $230 billion in cuts to food assistance to pay for tax breaks for billionaires," Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) said in a statement Thursday. "These are the largest Medicaid and food assistance cuts in American history."
“Make no mistake: Republicans want to give away trillions of dollars to the richest people in our country like Elon Musk, and they want to pay for it by taking food away from hungry children and letting people die from a lack of healthcare coverage," Tlaib continued. "We must raise our voices and defeat this dangerous Republican budget."
"In unifying behind this budget resolution, congressional Republicans are telling us they are serious about their agenda to rob everyday Americans in order to deliver a big payout to the ultra-wealthy in tax cuts."
Passage of the blueprint came hours after Republican congressional leaders and President Donald Trump managed to win the support of GOP holdouts concerned that the forthcoming legislative package won't reduce spending enough to offset the massive cost of fresh tax cuts, which would largely benefit the rich.
During a press conference Thursday following the vote, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) signaled that they are unified behind the goal of cutting at least $1.5 trillion in federal spending over the next decade—an objective that Trump has endorsed.
"We have a lot of United States senators who believe that is a minimum," Thune said of the $1.5 trillion figure.
Sharon Parrott, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said in a statement that "in this budget framework, there is no way to cut $1.5 trillion in spending while protecting health coverage through Medicaid and food assistance through [the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program]."
"This budget architecture was terrible a couple of months ago," Parrott added. "It is a far worse plan at a moment when the president's tariffs, chaotically crafted and applied, have caused business uncertainty to soar and raised the risk of a recession, higher unemployment, and surging prices."
In a post on his social media site, Trump congratulated House Republicans for approving the measure and claimed it would deliver "the Largest Tax and Regulation Cuts ever even contemplated."
An analysis released last week by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that renewing soon-to-expire provisions of the 2017 Trump-GOP tax law would cost $5.5 trillion over the next decade. Republican lawmakers have also called for an additional $1.5 trillion in tax cuts, which would push the overall cost of the tax package to $7 trillion.
David Kass, executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness, said in a statement Thursday that "the country is rapidly undergoing an intensifying economic crisis created by Trump and congressional Republicans, and the only legislative solution they've put forward is to double down on tax cuts for billionaires while eliminating healthcare access and food assistance for millions of Americans."
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, echoed that message, saying that "in unifying behind this budget resolution, congressional Republicans are telling us they are serious about their agenda to rob everyday Americans in order to deliver a big payout to the ultra-wealthy in tax cuts."
"As they now work to actually write the bill that they intend to push through via the reconciliation process, which will deplete funding for healthcare, nutrition, and other critical human needs in order to line the pockets of CEOs and billionaires, they should know we are also serious in our efforts to fight back," Gilbert added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Hey Schumer and Newsom, It’s Not Leadership to Abandon the People Who Need You Most
The Democratic Party’s retreat to centrism—from welfare reform in the 90s to recent budget deals—has consistently weakened its own base while signaling to Republicans that cruelty works.
Mar 29, 2025
It’s a tale as old as American liberalism: Say the right thing—but only when it’s safe, and only after the damage is done.
Earlier this month, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) had a choice to draw the line and stand up to a Republican-led budget that proposed slashing essential services like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Section 8 housing assistance. Instead, after publicly criticizing the bill, he reversed course in under 24 hours and urged Democrats to pass it—calling it the “best path forward to avoid a shutdown.”
This is what establishment leadership looks like: performative urgency wrapped in political safety.The families who rely on SNAP and Section 8 aren’t breathing easier because D.C. stayed open. They’re still wondering how to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads.
Schumer and Newsom want to be seen as steady hands.The country doesn’t need politicians who manage decline gracefully. They need leaders who disrupt the status quo to protect the people it was never built to serve.
Meanwhile, California Gov. Gavin Newsom decided to deny support to trans athletes. On the first episode of his new podcast, This Is Gavin Newsom, he said it was “deeply unfair” for trans women to compete in women’s sports—framing that echoed right-wing rhetoric used to push anti-trans legislation.
And he didn’t say it to a neutral audience—he said it toCharlie Kirk, a far-right extremist who has spent years spreading anti-LGBTQ+ disinformation and promoting voter suppression through Turning Point USA.
Newsom invited him on as his first guest in an effort to appear “bipartisan.” That move alone signals more than a desire to reach across the aisle—it signals whose approval he’s seeking.
This wasn’t a spontaneous exchange—it was a calculated move, and a political wink to the center-right, packaged as “balance.” And it came from the same man who once signed a bill making California a sanctuary state for trans youth. That contrast gave right-wing media a fresh soundbite.
Even Rep.Sarah McBride (D-Del.)—the first openly trans member of Congress—recently urged Democrats to make room for people with “honest questions” about trans inclusion in sports. But those questions aren’t neutral. They’re part of a long, strategic assault on trans people’s dignity.
State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-11), one of the few who consistently shows up for trans communities, called it out immediately: “Trans people are under attack. They need support, not betrayal.”
In March 2024, Schumer gave a speech condemning Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu and calling for elections in Israel—after more than 30,000 Palestinians were already dead. The speech was safe, and the policy—uninterrupted U.S. military aid—remained unchanged.
This is what performative politics looks like in action: too late, too safe, and too empty.
We’re told these are “tough choices.” But they’re only tough if your priority is your career. When Democrats lose ground, they often shift to the center—abandoning bold policies and the people who need them most.
But history shows that doesn’t win back power—it loses trust. As American Affairs Journal outlines, the party’s retreat to centrism—from welfare reform in the 90s to recent budget deals—has consistently weakened its own base while signaling to Republicans that cruelty works.
I know the cost of centrist politics because I lived it. In the 90s, Democrats embraced welfare reform and tough-on-crime laws to look “tough” and “moderate.”
That turn helped criminalize poverty. I was convicted of welfare fraud. I wasn’t gaming the system; I was surviving it. Whole communities were punished in the name of bipartisanship. So when Democrats today praise “moderation,” I hear echoes of policies that nearly erased me.
If you’re poor, trans, undocumented, disabled, or Palestinian—these choices don’t look tough. They look familiar.
And they cause harm. When people with power echo right-wing talking points, they legitimize them. They embolden bills that restrict bodily autonomy, gut benefits, and criminalize survival. They signal that marginalized people—their lives and dignity—are negotiable.
Schumer and Newsom want to be seen as steady hands.The country doesn’t need politicians who manage decline gracefully. They need leaders who disrupt the status quo to protect the people it was never built to serve.
So where are the leaders?
Not the ones who speak up after it’s politically safe. Not the ones who adjust their stances based on polling data, shifting with the wind instead of standing for something. Where are the ones who lead from the front?
Real leadership is not polished. It’s the woman clearing her record. It’s the trans activist running mutual aid while dodging attacks. It’s the undocumented student organizing for housing justice with no promise of safety.
And it is me, a formerly incarcerated queer Black woman who went back to college in her 50s. Who found her voice not in press rooms but in courtrooms, classrooms, and community spaces. Who survived systems designed to erase her and came back fighting for others still trapped inside them.
Real change doesn’t trickle down—it rises up. From organizing, solidarity, and movements that center the people most impacted and most ignored.
Real leaders are not waiting on permission. They are building with the people already creating justice—one expungement, one coalition, one unapologetic truth at a time.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular