Political battles from Congress to the bedrooms
Dr. Abdullah bin Musa Al Tayer
In America, a quiet revolution is raging, not in the halls of Congress, but in the bedrooms of Americans. Buoyed by demographic expectations, conservative strategists are pushing policies to raise birth rates among their base, viewing childbirth as a long-term electoral weapon in the face of a Democratic Party that imports voters through naturalization and encouraging immigration.
It’s a morally risky bet that uses biology to reshape the country’s electoral map, contingent on uncertain outcomes. Republicans believe that their children will inherit their beliefs and policies and grow up as Republican voters, driven by the conviction that immigrants and naturalized people lean toward the Democratic Party. So we are faced with the equation of cultivating voters versus importing them.
Perhaps not for political reasons, but rather religious ones, conservatives actually enjoy higher fertility, with higher birth rates than liberals. In red states like Utah and South Dakota, family numbers are increasing, in contrast to national trends of declining fertility. At the same time, blue states are experiencing a population stagnation, exacerbated by the migration of residents to conservative strongholds such as Texas and Florida, where family and its traditions are respected and legislation that cripples parents’ ability to parent is not passed. It is said that by the 2030 census this shift could give Republicans up to 12 additional electoral votes, as rising populations in Republican states lead to a redistribution of seats.
Political interference in this intimate battle seemed clear from the Trump administration’s introduction of pro-natal measures, including cash rewards for new parents, expanding the scope of infertility treatments, and even education about the menstrual cycle in schools to encourage early family planning. Project 2025, widely considered the current administration’s gospel, focuses on technological alternatives such as IVF subsidies and frames them as family-friendly investments. The stated goal is measures to address the low fertility rate in the United States to 1.62 births per woman, which is a very low percentage, by making childbearing easier and a priority in the culture of mating and starting a family. Supporters argue that their measures would support Social Security and economic growth without relying on immigration, which they claim weakens American values and promotes democratic participation.
On the other hand, opposition voices are rising that believe that these measures ignore harsh realities, including that immigration is not merely an “import” of potential voters – rather, it is necessary to compensate for demographic decline. Without it, the US population will age rapidly, which will strain resources, with the number of workers declining due to the increasing number of retirees. Conservatives’ focus on native births ignores how policies like abortion restrictions and scaling back of reproductive rights — revived under President Trump — have shaped concerns that discourage women from having children altogether. In states that have imposed abortion bans, fertility concerns have increased, with many women citing access to health care for their newborns as an obstacle to having children, especially if the newborn is ill. Global experiences in providing cash incentives, such as birth bonuses, have achieved mixed results. They promote short-term birth growth but do not address deeper issues such as child care costs, work-life balance, and economic insecurity.
Politically, the plan assumes a supportive ideological legacy, but they ignore that generations evolve; Millennials and Generation Z, even from conservative families, tend to be progressive on issues like climate and equality, which could tip the scales, turning out hard-core conservative Republicans who vote Democratic and support their liberal agenda.
Census data show that diversity is in Democrats’ long-term interests, and that treating demographics as a zero-sum game fuels division and fosters nationalist and anti-nationalist rhetoric, discouraging moderates and immigrants from integrating into either party.
Some believe that bringing political competition to the wombs and bedrooms to obtain votes is short-sighted and does not take into account the consequences. True demographic stability requires policies that include affordable housing, universal child care, and immigration reform that harnesses global talent in the service of scientific and industrial progress. Without this, an obsession with fertility does not guarantee electoral dominance, but rather threatens a polarized, single-minded and divided state.
One expert, commenting on the movement of politics from Congress to Americans’ bedrooms, points out that America’s future depends on coexistence, and it is not in dormitories or border crossings, but rather in national unity.
