Fresh Air - Baby Bonuses, Trad Wives & The Pronatalist Movement

Episode Date: April 30, 2025

A once-fringe movement claims having more babies is the only way to save civilization. NPR reporter Lisa Hagen and sociologist Karen Guzzo explain who's empowering pronatalism today.Plus, jazz critic Martin Johnson reviews a new album from Wilco guitarist Nels Cline.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Do you remember when discovering a new artist felt like finding buried treasure? At All Songs Considered, NPR's music recommendation podcast, we put that kind of magic back into discovering new tracks. We're here to make the hunt for new music easy, delivering you the cream of the crop from every genre. We'll help you make music feel fun again, only on All Songs Considered from NPR. This is Fresh Air. I'm Tonya Mosley.

Have more babies or civilization dies. That's the rallying cry behind a once-fringe ideology that has made its way into the mainstream. Pro-natalism has been in the news lately, with Trump policies underway to increase birth rates by giving away a $5,000 baby bonus for parents and a national medal of motherhood for moms who have six or more children. Pronatalists warn of an apocalyptic future that if birth rates in the U.S. keep falling,

we might be headed towards economic collapse, even extinction. They're pushing ideas like genetic engineering, limiting access to contraceptives, and the Great Replacement Conspiracy Theory, which believes that there is a plot to replace white populations with non-white immigrants. One of the more well-known faces of the movement is Elon Musk, who reportedly has at least 14 biological children with several different women, and has called the world's population decline the greatest threat to humanity. But critics argue that this movement isn't solely about increasing birth rates. It's about who gets to reproduce, under what terms, and at what cost. They argue that this movement ignores the

skyrocketing price of child care in our country, our broken parental leave systems, and a woman's autonomy over her own body. Well, today we're joined by two people whose work explores this movement and the motivations behind it. Dr. Karen Guzzo is a sociologist and fertility expert serving as the director of the Carolina Population Center and a professor of sociology

at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. And Lisa Hagen is a reporter for NPR who has been covering the pro-natal movement and attended last month's second annual NatalCon conference in Austin. Lisa Hagan and Karen Guzzo, welcome to Fresh Air. Thanks for having me. Happy to be here.

Well, I want to start with you, Lisa, and I want you to take us inside of this conference that you attended in Austin. First off, kind of set the scene for us. How big was it and how would you describe this overarching message you heard this year? Well, there were about 200 attendees. This was the second ever NatalCon. The first one was held two years ago and it was half the size. Still

a pretty small conference and I think what's interesting about it is that there were a lot of different kinds of messages. The tone had also shifted quite a bit from the first iteration of the conference. So you heard everything from people saying, you know, we should have a child tax credit increase to, you know, our enemies are the enemies of humanity and that sort of language. I'm just curious, what was the breakdown of men versus women at Natalcon? Oh, 95% men, absolutely. And like, let's also be- 95% men, absolutely. And what like, let's also be... 95% men. Yes.

So, another interesting thing to note there, right, is like some, there were supposed to be some women speakers. They have lots of kids. So some of them, their kids got sick or childcare, like whatever, right? Things fall through. I think there are some natural ways in which it ends up being a lot of dudes who are talking about this. The other thing is this was a very, very white crowd.

And I say that as someone who's been in a lot of sort of right-wing spaces. They're not always this white. There weren't no people of color there, but it's just important to sort of say that about who was gathered there What kinds of policies or incentives were seriously being discussed at natal con? Now that there's a real understanding and almost a wind in this movement sails by the Trump administration's priorities with pronatalism administration's priorities with pronatalism? You know, NatalCon is a bit of a, I would say, pie in the sky kind of gathering.

It's very open to a lot of ideas that would take a lot of political change to actually bring into being, like parental voting, for instance, you know, having parents vote on behalf of their minor children. That was suggested, I don't know, I think that would be very hard to bring about. You know, you hear things about like the child tax credit or getting rid of no-fault divorce. But what I would say, I think, is the through line always is that there's something off about culture and that culture specifically needs to change and that mainstream culture has devalued motherhood, those kinds of arguments. So that's sort of one of the bigger things that you'll hear a lot about how culture needs to change. I mean, you also will hear sort of traditionalist religious

arguments like people need to stop having abortions, or you know, pornography should be banned, or we need to rein in technology so that young people are looking less at their phones and more focused on having babies. I mean, I think it's a lot of more generalized stuff about culture needing to change. Okay, we're going gonna delve into some of those more granular details in the moment but before we get to that I want to go to you Dr. Guzzo to talk about the legitimacy of the problem that they're trying to solve. You're a demographer who studies when and why people have

children. Remind us of some of the reasons, particularly here in our country, that we are actually seeing a decline in birth rates. Sure. So one of the things I think is really interesting about this movement is that there's not been a huge increase in the share of people who say they don't want to have children. Instead, what's really happening is people are still generally saying they want to have kids and they want to have two, maybe three, but they're saying not now. They are taking parenthood and decisions to have kids really seriously. And so they look right now at the future, at their own lives, at the world around them, and they're like, now's not a good time, so maybe later.

And they keep making that decision to push it off and push it off because now's not a good time for them. And then that's how you end up with lower birth rates because some people will find that it is never a good time. Yeah, I was reading how now more women over 40 are having children up against the steep decline in teen pregnancies. But there's also an economic part to this, right, Dr. Guzzo? Like about 20 years ago, especially with the economic collapse around 2008, 2009, that

we started to see a decline in having babies. And that was very much tied to the way of life, people's ability to care for children. Yes. So one of the things I think gets lost that you brought up is that we have this remarkable decline in teen births and births to women in their early 20s. And that is a good new story in the sense that these are generally births to people who are saying, now is not a great time. So they're usually unintended or unplanned pregnancies.

And we have spent years, decades, and millions and hundreds of millions of dollars shaming young women, not young parents, but really young women, about having births when they're not ready, when they're too young, when they're not in a stable relationship, and when they're too poor, when they don't have a secure income. And so we told people you have to wait until you have all these things. You have to finish school. You have to have a good job. You have to be able to afford to live in a safe neighborhood. You have to be able to pay all your expenses. And you should have a good partner who can also do these things. We've told people to wait. And now we're surprised that they're waiting until they have those things. And so

it's sort of frustrating because we have not built a society where people can sort of readily have those things. And it's really picked up since the Great Recession and then exacerbated again by the pandemic. People are looking around and they're like, yeah, I can't pay all my bills. How can I possibly have a kid? Not that I don't want to, it's just how can I do that? Lisa, in your reporting, you featured a popular couple that has kind of been like rock stars in this movement,

the Collins. They describe themselves as techno-Puritans. Who are they and how many children do they have and kind of what's their overarching messaging? The first time I heard of the Collins' and I think this was a moment that maybe anyone who's heard of them possibly saw is there was an article that sort of named them the elite couple breeding to save mankind, which is a great headline. And you know, they have a very specific visual appearance. Simone Collins wears very chunky, memorable glasses. She dresses in a specific way.

Lylea Lierman She dresses like a Puritan. She dresses like from another era, another time. LESLIE KENDRICK Sort of, but like from Etsy, as she, you know, will tell you. They are very open about having designed their look and their appeal to draw attention. They have four children now. They have another one on the way. They plan to have as many as possible. And Simone has said that

she is willing to die in childbirth to have as many kids as possible and sort of, you know, advance this movement. Well, I think what's interesting about them is that they have evolved in how they appear in the media. They are now a very specific brand. And they are cultivating that brand. And one of the things they talk about in their brand is their view of, you know, everything is data-driven. Everything they're doing is very calculated and designed to be really efficient. And that's how they figure out what kids and how to have kids and spacing and all sorts

of things and parenting. Except there was a profile of them a few years ago where Malcolm sort of swatted his child in front of the reporter and the reporter was sort of aghast at it. And he said that his wife saw it on like in a nature documentary. That this is what, you know, a lioness was doing

to her cubs and they thought that was good. Tigers. Yes, there you go. So I'm thinking to myself. Yes, there you go. So I'm thinking to myself, wow, data-driven. I'm like, well, as a family sociologist and a demographer, I can tell you there's a whole lot of research on corporal punishment and child outcomes and well-being. So that data was, I think, inconvenient.

So they are data-driven when it's convenient and not data-driven when it doesn't fit their brand. You know, my understanding with the Collins' is that everything they do is sort of calculated to have some public impact and seem pretty interesting to people. Yeah, they've optimized their image to kind of go viral online, right, to gain attention. That's exactly right. They have a YouTube show and podcast called Baste Camp. They, you know, to a lot of mainstream media, they sort of try to present themselves as maybe not on the left or liberal necessarily, but not classically

conservative. And they talk a lot about wanting, you know, to preserve cultures that are open to LGBTQ folks and racial diversity and that sort of thing. On their podcasts, they sound a lot like a lot of right-wing influencer types. They talk about something called the urban monoculture, which Malcolm Collins has defined as being woke or just liberal culture in general. And he basically says that that's like cultural genocide. It only survives by creating popular culture and parasitizing children from other more healthy cultural groups. And what the Collins's are talking about with urban monoculture is, you know, you may want

to raise your children and your family in a certain way, but modern mainstream society is going to try to pull them away from you in ways that you hate. And that's what they mean by sort of parasitizing, like stealing children essentially. LESLIE KENDRICK It's really interesting where they sit politically. You mentioned that they don't necessarily consider themselves liberal, but they don't consider themselves on the far right.

And they also have told you that they are pushing it back against some of those racist ideologies that historically have been a part of the pro-Natalist movement. You all talked a little bit about how white nationalists are drawn to their podcast. And you actually talked to Malcolm Collins about this at the Freedom Economy Conference. Let's listen to what he had to say to you about racists and white nationalists who are drawn to the pro-natalist movement and

how he's interacted with them. To me it's a really exciting like people are like would you rather just keep this person out of your conference or would you rather have them come to your conference and then change how they see the world? Every single time I'd rather them come and change how they see the world. What makes you think, what makes you believe that people have changed the way they think? Well they're at least changing what they're saying publicly using their platforms and that matters to me. Maybe they haven't changing what they're saying publicly using their platforms, and that matters to me. Maybe they haven't changed what they think inside.

Maybe they just think now, oh, on the right, it's no longer cool to say these things. That's fine with me as well. That was Malcolm Collins, a leader in the pro-natalist movement, talking last year to one of my guests, Lisa Hagan. And Lisa, I want to point out that, I mean, of course, not all pro-Natalist arguments are inherently racist, but there is a clear and well-documented overlap between the rhetoric that they used and racist, xenophobic, and nationalist ideologies. How much of that did you encounter during your reporting at this conference, or more generally,

as you kind of like sleuth online and look at these worlds? It certainly depends on the community that you're looking at. And as you say, there is no way to say that all pronatalists are racists or interested in those kinds of politics at all. However, you know, it is a big conversation on the far far far right. Discussions and fears about birth rates show up in the manifestos of mass shooters who are talking very explicitly about being replaced, white people being replaced by other races. You know, at an event like Natalcon, where there are lots of mainstream journalists, you'll hear a different kind of language. Most people are a lot more careful about that sort of thing, but you also hear from folks like right-wing political operative Jack Posobic talking about, you know, the enemies of humanity and how we need to save Australia and Europe and America specifically.

And so it's always kind of couched, but the language of sort of fear around immigration trends is present a lot of the times. Lylea Kaye Dr. Gozo, I know that you've also been following the different factions of this movement, and you've talked about some of the more religious factions against IVF and abortion. I'm thinking about some of the groups that might make up kind of the religious faction of the pro-Natalist movement. I really think it's a term we band-aid around a lot in the United States, which is Christian

nationalism. So it's evangelical Christians who have a very specific view of what family looks like and that it's not just religion, but it's specifically sort of Christian evangelists. And they are worried about the sanctity of life. So they're going after IVF, but they're also even going after certain types of contraception, thinking that they cause abortion. They would like to get those outlawed. They would like to, again, move against different types of Mifepristone coverage or access to Mifepristone, which is one of the medication abortion pills. They're really going after family planning writ large because

they are worried about what it means when women can control their own reproduction. COLLEEN O'BRIEN. Catholics are also a big part of this movement. You know, you have JD Vance, you have other Catholic speakers who are at natal con. So certainly, the religious interest is broad. Lauren Henry What do the Collins think about IVF? Did Simone Collins actually have her children through IVF? Katharine Hickman Yeah, they say that they've used a lot of procedures in their births.

They're very pro. They're interested in leveraging any and all technology that exists sort of without limitations really. I think what's so interesting about what you all are sharing is that there is like no one main pathway to building a greater population. Like there are several different segments of this movement that have varying different ideas on how to do that.

Dr. Guzzo, can you talk a little bit about the three segments of the pronatalist movement? Sure. So, we've talked about the Collins and they sort of fit into this tech world where sort of, you know, they want to use the best technology available to have the best and brightest children and make sure their children, you know, have the best possible chances in life and sort of maximize their own fertility. And then you have sort of the more religious groups who would not want to use technology, who would be against IVF because life begins at conception and so destroying embryos is destroying human life.

And they're really concerned about getting people married earlier and having them have births within marriage. And so they are not interested in raising necessarily teen birth rates unless they are marital teen birth rates. So, they're really focused on the two-parent family and really it needs to be married to and preferably Christian. And then you have sort of the more racist groups who are very concerned that somehow true Americans, and I say that with sort of quote marks, you know, true Americans are

going to be outbred by immigrants. And so this is a longstanding idea. So we've of course heard about it in the Great Replacement Theory, but this goes back 25 years. You know, Pat Buchanan wrote a book, The Death of the West, in 2001, about sort of the danger of immigrant populations coming out and coming to the United States and having more children than native-born true real Americans and that this was going to ruin our society. So this is not a new idea.

I would say they all have overlaps. So you would think the Collins have been pretty clear that they don't necessarily care about race or ethnicity. Having said that, when you talk about having the best and brightest and using technology, you are really darn close to eugenics. We have done this in the United States before, where we have sterilized poor women. We have sterilized women who are considered feeble or unfit. There are tons of really rich but sad research on Mississippi appendectomies,

you know, about women of color getting sterilized against their will. And so, these are some of the same ideas about who should and who shouldn't have kids. So you want to have the best and brightest kids. Does that mean that people who are having kids the old-fashioned way are somehow second-class citizens? Is that what we're moving towards? It's very science fiction-y, but it makes many of us who are in demography and know our history very uncomfortable. Our guest today, our NPR reporter Lisa Hagan and sociologist Dr. Karen Guzzo, will continue our conversation about the resurgence of the pro-Natalist movement after a short break. I'm Tonya Mosley, and this is Fresh Air. This message comes from WISE, the app for doing things and other currencies. And this is our job.

Every hour on the NPR News Now podcast, we take the latest most important stories happening and we package them into five minute episodes. So you can easily squeeze them in between meetings and on your way to that thing, listen to the NPR News Now podcast now. When Malcolm Gladwell presented NPR's Throughline podcast with a Peabody Award, he praised it for its historical and moral clarity. On Throughline, we take you back in time to the

origins of what's in the news like presidential power, aging, and evangelicalism. Time travel with us every week on the ThruLine podcast from NPR. On the next ThruLine from NPR. For the presidency, I'm indebted to Almighty God. I'm in charge of the country and I need to serve all the American people and not just the political machine. The origins of the modern civil service. Listen to ThruLine wherever you get your podcasts. When we look at actual demographic data, how significant is immigration in offsetting the

birth decline in the U.S. compared to boosting? Immigration has been really important for the United States and it has for a long time. And so it has actually kept our population growing. So our total fertility right now, which is kind of a hypothetical estimate of how many births women will have over the course of their lifetime, is below what we consider replacement. So the replacement level is 2.1, and births are around 1.6 right now. But we're not facing population decline right now because we have high rates of immigration. Now in certain areas, mostly in sort of rural areas, we are seeing populations decline because

young people aren't having kids, in part because a lot of young people have left rural areas. But immigration by and large has really propped up the United States, not necessarily directly through births, but really through just bringing working-age people to the United States. And that is something that if we are able to accommodate, will continue to be a boon to the United States population. They are really important for the labor market. They actually do pay taxes often, even if they don't collect social security later. So they're really important. And countries like Japan, which is basically close to immigration, they're pacing declining

population in part because not only do they have low birth rates, but they're not allowing immigrants in either. You know, I know historically most people know and understand that particularly when it comes to black people, descendants of enslaved Americans, we've kind of been absent from this more modern day conversation. We know the history where eugenicists use this pseudoscientific language to justify

racial segregation, for instance. But you've talked about, Dr. Gozzo, more recent efforts underway, like limiting welfare and the whole idea of the welfare mom. Can you talk about that a little bit as it relates to this idea about who should be a part of this pro-natalist movement and who's actually not? There are very few people of color in the pro-natalist movement. There's a separate

movement by black feminist scholars and activists called reproductive justice, which is about, you know, basically giving people the right to have children, the right not to have children, the right to have bodily autonomy as to when and under what circumstances, and the right to have children and raise them in a safe environment. And so we've often demonized poor women, women of color, for having children under the wrong circumstances. And yet these are people who have made vibrant communities and that's all they're asking for.

But instead we've sort of policed them. So, you know, there's a lot of research on the violence towards families that is part of the foster care system, that we punish women for being poor and disrupt families. And so we talk about being pro-family in the United States, but we are so anti-family to so many people and to so many groups. And that's, I think, what's missing from the pro-natalist movement is actually attention to being pro-family. We have one of the weakest social safety nets of any industrialized country, and right now we're looking at chopping major parts of it, which sort of baffles me. If we really wanted to be pro-family, we would not be cutting programs like Head Start.

We would not be facing huge cuts to SNAP funding, you know, the food stamp program. And so, you know, to me, I hear these things and I'm like, $5,000 bonuses? And yet you're going to cut Head Start and you're going to raise prices on everything through tariffs? I'm like, that doesn't make sense to me. Oh, well, that's a question I have for you, Dr. Guzzo. Like, do incentives work? I mean, $5,000 in this economy to have a baby?

They don't work. I mean, there's so much research on this that really shows that countries have tried this. And so they have this little tiny bump. They might change the timing. You might decide to go ahead and have that first kid. Or you might decide to have your second kid a little bit sooner. But by and large, they do not have any appreciable impact on birth rates overall or the number

of births people have over their own lifetimes. They don't work because it costs, on average, something like $300,000 to raise a kid from birth to age 18. $5,000 isn't going to cut it. We had the expanded child tax credit of the American Rescue Plan in 2021 that halved child poverty. And we did not vote to expand it or continue it. And so, the idea that we would be revisiting this in a different way, on a much more limited basis, is really concerning. I just want to also mention, expanding the child tax credit is something that J.D. Vance

has talked about specifically. And he had an opportunity to vote to expand and extend the child tax credit and did not. So I think something that's important to mention is that the pronatalist groups, for the most part, have a tendency to be very supportive of the Trump administration and specifically what Elon Musk is doing with Doge. But, you know, these are, as Karen is talking about, these are not policies generally associated with helping families that are struggling. Danielle Pletka And even these birth bonuses they're considering,

they're not available to everybody. What was neat about the American Rescue Plan is that it wasn't something that was just you got money back at taxes. You got $300 a month if you had a child under age six. And you didn't necessarily have to pay income taxes. They expanded eligibility for it. So it went to everybody. These new plans they're talking about, they're not going to give them to poor women, to the people who would really need them most.

They are, again, trying to say, no, no, only some people should be having kids. You mentioned how these types of ideas do not work. But I was just wondering in other places, in other countries, because I know that Hungary and Russia, I think even Singapore have introduced these kinds of incentives, like tax breaks and housing benefits.

I think that Hungary even offers free fertility treatments. How effective are those types of measures? So, the country that probably has had the most effective fertility plans is actually probably Israel because it makes IVF really widely available. So, when people delay having kids, in part because they're getting education, they're building careers, that does seem to help Israel. But most of these other programs, they're very careful about how they extend them. So many of these countries, again, don't give the benefits to single women or unmarried

women, LGBTQ families. They don't have big impacts. They help a little bit on the margins, but for the cost of them, they don't have big impacts. They help a little bit on the margins, but for the cost of them, they are not having big impacts. But the ones that matter most are the things that actually make it easier for people to combine work and family. So one of the things that people worry about is if we offer, quote, unquote, too generous of a social safety net, people won't work.

There's not a lot of evidence for that. People generally want to work. When they have kids, they want to work a little bit less. They want to stay home more, which is something we all think that would be great for kids. We know that actually having parental leave is great for kids and for bonding, and it's good for both mothers and fathers. But investing in a robust child care infrastructure

is really important. Sweden, I was reading about, has a high female workforce participation rate. They also provide robust child care and parental leave. They tend to have higher fertility than countries where women have fewer rights. What can we learn from a place like Sweden? Yeah, so that's interesting.

So Sweden has also seen a decline in fertility. And so when I was giving interviews 10, 15 years ago, I'd say, oh, I wish we could be Sweden, that would help us. And of course, they've seen these declines too. What I will say is Sweden's fertility rate is much, much, much better than Japan or China or South Korea, where they have social safety nets, where they have childcare programs and leave programs, but they don't have gender equality in any way, shape, or form in either the labor force or in the division of labor in the home. And so gender equality might be what keeps places from tipping well below replacement

and into that super low levels that people start to really worry about. And so I think that's what a lot of young adults are looking at. They're like, I think that's what I want. I think I want to have a partner who will help me out and we are in this boat together. And what tends to happen is a lot of people have that thought before they have kids and then the constraints of the labor market make it such that it's really difficult to have in practice. So if you can't afford childcare, one of you is going to stay home, I guess it's often

going to be mom. And then you kind of default back into traditional divisions of labor, even though that's not what people originally wanted or at least said they wanted. Let's take a short break. If you're just joining us, my guests are NPR reporter Lisa Hagan and demographer, sociologist, and fertility expert Dr. Karen Guzzo. We're talking about the resurgence of the pro-natalist movement. We'll continue our conversation after a short break. This is Fresh Air. Have you or someone you love been confused by the push to make America healthy again?

Then you, my friend, are in dire need of our new series. On It's Been A Minute from NPR, we're delving into some of the origins, conspiracy theories and power grabs that have led us to this moment and what it could mean for our health. That's on the It's Been A Minute podcast from NPR. Do you think you have ADHD? You're not alone. After the pandemic hit, there was a huge jump in ADHD diagnoses among adults. And at the same time, the internet is more and more obsessed with saying everything is a sign of it. To identify the red flags when a diagnosis goes viral. Listen to the It's

Been A Minute podcast today. The last time I had an infant was 12 years ago and the price of affordable child care was so high that really it was a matter for many families on whether to work or not because many families will spend an entire income or close to it just on child care. It costs as much or more as rent or mortgage. Yeah, it's a really big problem in the United States and it's one that other countries, including countries that do have low birth rates, other countries have dealt with. In the United States, we have very much individualized, you know, if you're going to have a baby,

you better figure out how you're going to pay for it and whether you can afford child care. So, you know, budgetary rules, they recommend that child care should cost no more than 7 percent of your income. There's not a single state where that is possible. At the minimum, it's like 10% and it goes up to like 20%. And there are studies on child care deserts that compare the price of infant care to the price of a four-year college degree. And so I think it's something like 38 states in D.C. where the average annual cost for infant care is more than the cost of tuition for a public university. I mean, that's the kind of stuff people are faced with.

So what happens is just what you're saying is people leave the labor market. And when I say people, I mean mothers. It's almost always mothers because they do often make less money than their partners. And it's also the case that, you know, they do need to recover. Because we don't have paid family leave in the United States, about one in four women return to work within two weeks of giving birth. That is way too early. That is absolutely shameful.

And only about a fifth of people have access to paid leave in the United States. And so we don't make this a very family-friendly country. We shame high-earning women and well-educated women for working too much and not staying home with their kids. And then we shame poor women for wanting to stay home with their kids because their income doesn't offset the price of child care. You can't win.

And that's really, I think, a big problem. Elon Musk has been evangelizing. He's been sending these dire warnings that unless the low birth rate changes, civilization will disappear. He's framing it as the biggest threat to civilization. What do you make, Dr. Guzzo, of tech leaders kind of stepping in?

Some techno-pronatalists also argue that a bigger population means more geniuses and innovation. Yeah, so Elon Musk is interesting in the sense that there are a lot of people in the tech world who are good at math and think that makes them good at demography because it's a math-related field, but they don't really understand some of the theories, some of the ways we do modeling and think about this. So, at one point, Musk was projecting something and he projected this all the way down to zero zero and I was like, well, no, that's not right. But he has this huge influence and so people are listening to him.

So it is important to take him seriously. But some of the stuff he just says, to be honest, is pretty bonkers. He has this whole thing about C-sections, that women should have C-sections because that allows their baby's brains to be bigger than a vaginal birth. And that is just so utterly bonkers. I mean, babies' heads, their skulls are not fully fused for an evolutionary reason to go through the birth canal without, you know, crushing their brains. And so, the idea that we're listening to this guy, I mean, it chills me.

COLLEEN O'BRIEN It also deeply ignores the fact that those are really personal decisions that carry real health risks for people giving birth, right? So it's a very specific focus on the product of the birth rather than the person doing the birthing. Elan Musk has a lot of kids, but he definitely is not a traditional family man. That's something that's also been discussed and thinking about traditional family, lots of kids, the nuclear family, and just this need to have more children.

Of course there are folks, especially on the sort of religious end of pronatal advocacy, who say, you know, I don't love everything about the way that Elon Musk is building his family, but there is a sometimes explicit, sometimes underlying acknowledgement that he is the biggest beacon of this issue. He's very rich, he's very powerful, and folks in the pro-natalist movement, though they may not agree with the way that he's living his life, they would all love his support and for him to continue doing exactly what he's doing. And so that sort of tells you about the focus on purpose rather than any of the specific

values or disagreements these communities may have with each other. Lyle Ornstein Dr. Guzzo, one of the things I'm trying to reconcile are the thoughts in the past around pronatalism along with today's actions. So for instance, during the Cold War, population control was seen as a kind of master key. So American elites actually believed population growth caused poverty and that poverty then turned into communism.

How does this square with today's movement? So one of the things that's interesting is that this all has this idea that reproduction is the future and it's the key to everything and all we have to do is control women. So for me, it's always really hard to separate the arguments about populations from the fact that this is about what women should or should not do and who gets to decide what women do. And so when I think about low birth rates right now and what does that mean for, you know, the economy, well, it does mean potentially fewer workers, but then we also have things like technological advance.

We're having a whole separate conversation about the meaning of automation and robotics and AI. So maybe we don't need as many workers. And the research really shows that young men, they don't want to have kids right now either. If we wanted to raise birth rates right now, young people are saying, yeah, I want to have kids. I just can't right now for these reasons. We could try listening to those reasons or we can say, you know, we're going to give you a medal if you have six. Lisa, I was just wondering, you mentioned how Vice President J.D. Vance has kind of echoed these worries. The Trump's White House has been asking for suggestions from married couples to boost birth rates.

How empowered does the movement feel with perceived allies in government that all of this will turn into concrete policies? Did they talk about this at all during the conference? Danielle Pletka Oh, yeah. NATOcon was a very celebratory moment for folks. They certainly wouldn't argue and say that they've brought this conversation about, but they're so excited by the fact that things that they were talking about, you know, previous to this iteration of the Trump administration, are now being discussed by people in very

powerful positions in our country. Absolutely. The other thing that you will hear a lot, you know, there are a lot of different groups, as we've discussed, within this movement, but they have a through line. And the through line is that our current culture is messed up, either culturally or through policy or feminism has screwed things up, birth control, whatever it is. But what you hear a great deal less about are that there are perhaps other options for why things are messed up. And so I think what this does is it takes dissatisfaction

with the very difficult world that we're all trying to survive in, and it says, hey, the solution is more babies, and sort of leaves out this whole range of other things that we might be talking about to improve people's lives and confidence to bring children into the world. Lisa Hagan and Dr. Karen Guzzo, thank you so much. Thanks for having us. Yeah, great being here. Dr. Karen Guzzo is a demographer, sociologist, and fertility expert, and Lisa Hagan is a reporter for NPR.

Coming up, guest critic Martin Johnson reviews a new jazz album from Wilco guitarist Nels Klein. This is Fresh Air. On Trump's terms, we have followed the first hundred days of this administration. Tariffs very strongly work. A trade war. Get ready. Elon Musk and Doge.

We will make mistakes. Deportations, litigation. I don't know who the judge is. He's radical left. Those first hundred days are coming to a close, but the pace of the news will likely continue. Follow NPR's coverage of President Trump trying to do things no other president has on Trump's terms from NPR. Guitarist Nels Klein is one of the most versatile players on the music scene today. He's a heavyweight among indie rockers and well known in both mainstream and avant-garde

jazz circles, but he's probably best known as a member of Wilco. He joined that band 20 years ago, and he's continued to add muscular grit and keening depth to the band's sound. Klein's new recording is named after his new group, Concentric Quartet, but in many ways, the new album sounds like a retrospective of Klein's diverse musical activities.

Guest critic Martin Johnson has this review. Nels Klein first made his mark on the Los Angeles scene in the 80s, often in groups alongside his twin brother Alex, a percussionist. They played in a variety of jazz as well as indie rock bands. This sort of dual-genre life is mirrored in Klein's involvement in jazz, where he's played in almost every subgenre imaginable, from maracas-shronky free jazz to lush, romantic takes on the classic American songbook on his 2016 release, Lovers. The concentric quartet is capable of starting out hummable, as they do on Surplus, and rising toward a spectacular fury. This is brawny music at times.

Some of it harkens back to the 80s in the sort of free jazz fusion combos. And at times there are passages that are reminiscent of the growing range of heavy metal jazz blends on the scene today. Klein founded the group for an improvised jam in Brooklyn six years ago, but then he began writing for them, especially during the lockdowns when he felt enveloped by silence. And that's a key to the quartet's range. Moments of delicate austerity alternate with bold, provocative sections as they do here on the aptly named, Slipping into Something. Since moving to New York in 2009, Kline has played with bassists Chris Leichap and drummer

Tom Rainey in multiple formats, most notably in Leichap's outstanding group Superette. For concentric quartet, he added saxophonist Ingrid Laubrath, another stalwart of the New York scene. Their unisons over Leichap's snorting bass and Rainey's furious drumming generate a big bright energetic sound, which makes their quieter segments feel dark and affecting. That's the sequence on Satomi, which was named for Satomi Matsuzaki, the bassist and singer for Dearhoff and Indy Rock Powerhouse. It was written for her family drama during the pandemic when she had to fly back and

forth between her native Japan and the United States. Klein sometimes chooses wry names for his bands. For instance, his group, the Nels Klein Singers, has no vocalist, and they play abstract, brooding music that even Bjork might be hard pressed to vocalize. But the concentric quartet is more straightforward. He considers the playing and the building of solos between his bandmates to be a series of concentric circles. However, he chose the middle English spelling, consent, R-II-K because he liked it better. It's hard to say why this particular line-up, guitar, saxophone, bass and drums, hasn't become more commonplace.

There was the John's-Gofield-Joe-Lovano bands of the 80s, and more recently ensembles featuring saxophonist Walter Smith III and guitarist Matthew Stevens. As happens in this group, the joyous roar of Klein's guitar pairs nicely with the pithy wail of Lelbrook saxophone. When joined by the grooves of light cap space and rainiest drums, it feels like a new millennium version of Hard Bop. The music of the concentric quartet suggests that there is a wealth of sonic ground to explore here, no matter how you spell the band's name. Music Guest jazz critic Martin Johnson writes about jazz for the Wall Street Journal and Downbeat.

He reviewed the new album by Nils Klein called Concentric Quartet. Tomorrow on Fresh Air, Terry Gross pays tribute to her late husband, Grammy Award-winning jazz critic Francis Davis, who died on April 14. Terry is going to talk about him, read excerpts of his award-winning writing, and play some of the music he wrote about. I hope you can join us. To keep up with what's on the show and get highlights of our interviews, follow us on Instagram at NPR Fresh Air. Fresh Air's executive producer is Danny Miller. Our technical

director and engineer is Audrey Bentham. Our managing producer is Sam Brigger. Our senior producer today is Teresa Madden. Roberta Shorrock directs the show. With Terry Gross, I'm Tanya Mosley.