Selective Gestation: The Racial Politics of American Pronatalism
Elon Musk and his son, X Æ A-Xii, in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington. Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
The U.S. birth rate is plummeting. In 2023, it reached a historic low of 1.6 children per woman. For prominent right-wing figures, this demographic decline forewarns not just a crisis in reproduction, but deeper anxieties about race and national identity. Elon Musk has called the collapsing birth rate “the biggest danger civilization faces by far.” In his first public address as Vice President, JD Vance stated that he “want[s] more babies in America.” President Trump declared, “I want a baby boom,” dubbing himself the “fertilization president.” These sentiments are becoming increasingly common, reflecting the re-emergence of an old ideology: pronatalism. Simply put, this movement encourages childbearing and advocates for heightened birth rates—positions that, at first glance, appear socially beneficial. However, while the stated goals of pronatalism might seem innocuous, closer examination reveals a troubling connection with eugenics and white supremacy.
Historically, American pronatalism has been closely intertwined with anxieties about shifting social demographics. University of Pittsburgh History Professor Laura Lovett had noted that interest in pronatalism first surged in the 1920s after white women gained the right to vote, out of concerns about them wielding too much social power. This concern came from fears that white women would prioritize education, careers, and overall independence over traditional roles as wives and mothers. In turn, declining birth rates among white middle-class women were interpreted not just as a demographic trend, but as a political crisis—a potential weakening of the white population’s dominance in American society. Leaders like Theodore Roosevelt likened declining birth rates among white middle-class women to “race-suicide,” revealing the racial undertones embedded since the start of pronatalist discourse. According to Lovett, Roosevelt viewed reproduction as a public duty that was essential to maintaining the nation’s strength.
Trump has actively engaged with pronatalist ideas, including signing an executive order aimed at expanding access to in vitro fertilization (IVF) in February of 2025. At first glance, Trump’s support might seem at odds with traditional conservative viewpoints, which typically oppose procedures like IVF because they involve the potential destruction of embryos. However, Trump’s backing of reproductive technology is better accounted for considering the support for pronatalism by the “tech right,” a group of Silicon Valley individuals who advocate for a restrictive democracy and donated heavily to Trump’s campaign for re-election.
In such spaces, the eugenicist undercurrents of the modern pronatalist movement become evident. Silicon Valley venture capitalists Malcolm and Simone Collins (self-described “hipster eugenicists”) are pushing for medical research to engineer the “mass production of genetically selected humans.” They have reportedly spent significant sums on IVF and embryo screening for traits like IQ and openly embraced the idea of creating a “better human race.” The Collinses, who support Trump, claim to reject any sort of racist ideology in their philosophy. However, their focus on genetic selection echoes historical ideas of optimizing the population through selective breeding. More specifically, their emphasis on intelligence aligns closely with white supremacist eugenicist concerns about the quality and quantity of specific populations. This fantasy of engineering a superior race to “save civilization” mirrors the rhetoric of late-imperial ideologies, such as the British Empire’s belief in the ‘civilizing mission’ during its colonial era.
Modern pronatalism’s connection to white supremacy is undeniably present within the broader movement pushed by the Trump Administration and its supporters. The fear of declining birth rates is often framed in a way that suggests a threat to national or cultural identity, often in reference to a particular racial or ethnic group. One example of this is the “Great Replacement Theory,” a debunked conspiracy theory rooted in the belief that the white race is under threat of extinction due to the growing presence and influence of racial minorities. Proponents of the belief argue that low birth rates within the nation, along with immigration from the outside world, lead to “ethnic substitution.” Such a mentality fuels xenophobia and can easily morph into other white supremacist ideologies. These ideas have been mainstreamed by figures like Tucker Carlson, a popular alt-right political commentator. On his Fox News show (which has since been cancelled for unrelated reasons) Carlson claimed that “the whole point of their [Democrats’] immigration policy is to ensure political control, [to] replace the population.” What was left unsaid by Carlson, of course, was that the concern is over the dilution of specific white populations in America.
Carlson is not the only Trump supporter amplifying those viewpoints to a wide audience. Pat Buchanan, a conservative politician, has written several books in which he argues that Western civilization faces an existential crisis due to low birth rates and immigration from the developing world. In his 2002 book Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil our Country and Civilization, Buchanan asserts that “In America, the places prepared for the forty million unborn lost since Roe v. Wade have been filled by the grateful poor of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.” Buchanan’s thinking treats demographic evolution not merely as a threat to national identity, but as the ultimate unraveling of the Western world—a fear that the global periphery is overtaking its center. His fear is not just that the U.S. will undergo change, but that the West itself will collapse.
The presence of white supremacists at pronatalist events further stresses the disturbing link between pronatalism and racist ideas. At the 2025 Natal Conference, an annual pronatalist convention, neo-Nazi collaborator Jack Posobeic focused on America’s historic population decline, which he contended was a threat to national identity and culture. In reference to the uptick in immigration from the developing world, he stated that “we are not replacing ourselves… those who don’t share our values are [replacing us],” demonstrating the racialized concerns driving much of the movement.
Some pronatalists simply advocate for policies that support families more broadly, emphasizing individual liberty and reproductive justice. Lyman Stone, director of the Pronatalism Initiative at the Institute for Family Studies, explained how the movement’s goal is “restructuring society in a way that treats family goals as worthy.” Stone also noted the importance of mental health and early-childhood education in supporting bigger families. However, while these moderate voices do exist, the more extreme ones, such as Posobiec, Buchanan, and the Collinses, cannot be ignored. The movement’s historical and modern political context cannot be so easily brushed aside. When coupled with restrictive abortion policies, such as those passed in some states after the overturning of Roe v. Wade, these proposed policies render the female body a biopolitical tool through which to secure the nation’s demographic future.
Some sects of the pronatalist movement may possess a genuine desire to strengthen all American families. However, the right’s hyperfixation on genetic selection, coupled with anxiety regarding the loss of national identity due to population decline, echoes prior attempts to engineer a “better” human race in order to maintain racial hierarchies.
Veronica Agudelo (CC ’28) intends to major in philosophy and is particularly interested in post-structuralism and semiotics. Her favorite genre of music is jazz, and one of her goals in life is to travel as much of the world as possible, accompanied by her two younger sisters, Julia and Sara.