President Donald Trump wanted a baby boom. Is it here?

On Feb. 25, Dr. Casey Means faced lawmakers at her Senate confirmation hearing.

"We'll take a break at 11 to allow Dr. Means to care for her child," committee chair Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican, said in his opening remarks.

Means, President Donald Trump's nominee for surgeon general, was originally scheduled to testify in October. But the hearing was postponed after she went into labor around that time.

It was perhaps the most visible recent example of the administration's burgeoning baby boom.

Sen. Dr. Roger Marshall, a Kansas Republican, introduced Means at the February hearing, saying: "I'm especially glad we're able to hold this meeting, which was long overdue, but being in labor is one of the best excuses we've had to delay a hearing. So congratulations to your family. We hope baby boy Phoenix, 17 weeks old today, is doing great."

Trump has made it no secret he wants a baby boom. Is it here? Certainly within his administration, it seems to be. More widely, however, that question is complicated, experts say.

Those Trump administration pregnancies and the rise of pronatalism

Several pregnancies connected to the Trump administration as well as the buzzy pronatalism movement have been gaining attention recently.

Vice President JD Vance's wife, Usha Vance, is expecting her fourth child in July − a historic first, as no previous sitting second lady has given birth while in the role. Trump's homeland security adviser and deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller and his wife Katie Miller, a political podcaster, are expecting their fourth child. White House deputy chief of staff James Blair and his wife are also expecting, Fox News reported. And White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced in December that she's pregnant with her second child.

"I am also extremely grateful to President Trump and our Chief of Staff Susie Wiles for their support, and for fostering a pro-family environment in the White House," Leavitt wrote in her social media post announcing her pregnancy.

These announcements come at a time when pronatalism, a movement that promotes childbearing in response to global birth rate declines, is having a moment. Last year, Trump said he'll be known as "the fertilization president."

Trump has made a significant push in his second term to urge American women to have more babies, including establishing $1,000 savings accounts for newborns and child care tax credits.

Karen Guzzo, director of the Carolina Population Center at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said these recent pregnancy announcements are an example of the Trump administration trying to "walk the walk."

Pronatalism has drawn a wide range of proponents. Some are religious, some atheist. Some conceive children naturally, others through in-vitro fertilization, or IVF. Despite their differences, all agree on one thing: America's plummeting birth rate is a problem, and, unless something changes, society may be doomed.

Malcolm and Simone Collins, two prominent pronatalists and political podcasters, have five children together. They told USA TODAY in April that they want at least seven kids.

"Pronatalism has sort of become the global warming of the right. It's a broad statistical issue that is going to lead to the collapse of our civilization," Malcom Collins said. "And, for whatever reason, the other side is unable to acknowledge it."

Is the baby boom Trump wants upon us?

Are these moves by the Trump administration leading to any measurable change in the birth rate? Not really, experts say − or at least not yet.

Here's what we do know: Conservatives are having more babies than liberals, according to a study from the Institute for Family Studies, a family policy think tank. The institute found a relationship between the share of people in a county who voted for Trump in 2024 and counties' fertility rates. In counties where less than 25% voted for Trump, there was a median total fertility rate of 1.31; in counties where more than 75% voted for Trump, there was a median total fertility rate of 1.84. The relationship between voting Republican and having more children is growing stronger over time, the study found.

Generally, though, the U.S. fertility rate is declining, per the latest data released in July 2025, now at 1.62 births per woman and less than the replacement rate needed to prevent a declining U.S. population. The country's declining birth rate reflects global trends.

It will take a couple years for the impact of the Trump administration's baby boom and pronatalist policies to show up in the data, said Emily Oster, an economics professor at Brown University and CEO of ParentData, a parenting research forum.

Oster suspects it will be complicated as other recent policy changes have arguably made it harder for people to have kids, like cuts to Head Start and changes to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, eligibility.

It's clear Trump wants more babies to be born, Guzzo said, but "to the right people," such as native-born married couples with high incomes.

Meanwhile, some women are simply waiting longer to have babies, which means the fertility rate decline "may not be as big as it seems," Oster said.

"I'm not sure it's about political affiliation, as much as the other things that go along with political affiliation," Oster said. "We know that fertility rates tend to be higher, for example, in religious communities."

Oster said in order for us to see real changes to the birth rate, the main theories for the decline − affordability and lack of resources − have to be addressed by more concrete, substantial supports for families like paid maternity leave, affordable child care and having health insurance cover fertility services.

"I don't think that most people are deciding their fertility based on the fertility of the people in the current administration, no matter what it is," Oster said.

USA TODAY Wellness reporters Sara Moniuszko and Charles Trepany contributed to this report.

Madeline Mitchell's role covering women and the caregiving economy at USA TODAY is supported by a partnership with Pivotal and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.

Reach Madeline at *[email protected] and @maddiemitch_ on X.*