The Heritage Foundation is at it again—this time with a new proposal it’s branding as the “Manhattan Project for Babies.” Drawing on the language of World War II-era urgency, Heritage is pitching a sweeping set of pronatalist policies meant to reverse the decline in U.S. birthrates. But the patriotic branding and soft-focus concern for “family formation” mask something more insidious: a taxpayer-funded plan to subsidize only a very narrow, ideologically approved version of the American family—straight, married, religious, and conservative.
Let’s be clear: This isn’t about supporting families. It’s about enforcing a cultural hierarchy. In Heritage’s vision, families led by LGBTQ+ couples, single parents, cohabiting partners, or anyone else who doesn’t fit the mold are not just left out—they’re actively excluded. And the public policies that Heritage proposes wouldn’t just reinforce that exclusion; they’d codify it in law, using state power and public money to reward cultural and religious conformity while punishing the families they despise. This isn’t family policy—it’s Christian nationalism in think tank gloss.
At the heart of Heritage’s plan is a bundle of government incentives—tax credits, child allowances, housing subsidies—intended to encourage people to have more children. But there’s a catch: The benefits would go only to heterosexual, married couples. Unmarried parents? Excluded. LGBTQ+ families? Don’t even ask.
This isn’t some kind of oversight or misunderstanding—it’s by design. Emma Waters, a Heritage Foundation fellow and a key voice behind the plan, has made it abundantly clear in her previous writing that this isn’t just about increasing the number of births. It’s about who is having babies, and under what circumstances. Waters writes that “[t]here is no substitute for marriage” and argues for policies that push Americans back into a traditional, religiously-informed model of family life: husband, wife, multiple children, strict gender roles.
In Waters’ own words, the goal is to “rebuild” the American family. But rebuild for whom? Certainly not for the millions of LGBTQ+ people raising children. Not for single parents who are already stretched thin by an economy that’s rigged against them. Not for families who don’t meet the moral standards set by far-right ideologues. What Heritage is offering isn’t support. It’s endorsement of the “right” kind of families—and the message is loud and clear: Only certain families are worth investing in.
If Heritage is invoking the Manhattan Project—tellingly, a secretive, top-down wartime effort that gave us the atomic bomb—then let’s offer an alternative: What we really need is a Marshall Plan for families.
The Marshall Plan rebuilt Europe after World War II by investing deeply in the basic needs of entire populations—housing, food, infrastructure, economic stability. Setting aside the plan’s disregard for investing in countries in the Global South who turned their countries upside down supporting the war effort, the Marshall Plan was a singular success and an amazing example of the benefits of government investment to stabilize international relations while also ensuring that the actual people affected by our governments can get what they need to survive. That’s what we need here in the United States, not more vengeful culture war schemes.
Want people to have children? Make sure they know they will have a roof over their heads, food on the table, affordable healthcare, and time to care for their kids without falling into poverty. Want to “revitalize” family life? Start by ensuring that no one is forced to choose between a medical bill and a month’s rent, or between having a child and staying in the workforce.
Even if we accept Heritage’s premise that declining birthrates are a problem for any individual country, there is a far more effective solution available right now: immigration. Immigrants already make up a growing share of the American workforce and contribute significantly to the economy, communities, and yes—birthrates. But Heritage isn’t interested in those kinds of solutions because their concern is not the economy but its vision of a white America.
The truth is, Heritage’s plan makes perfect sense—if you accept their underlying belief in a rigidly stratified society. In this worldview, some people are “deserving” of state support—mainly straight, white, married, religious couples who uphold traditional gender norms—while others must be left to struggle as a consequence of their “choices.” Single mother? You chose wrong. Queer parents? You’re living in sin. Poor and unable to have kids? You must not be trying hard enough. It’s a highly punitive bootstraps ideology wrapped up in a baby blanket.
This ideology has always existed at the core of right-wing social policy: the idea that suffering is earned, and that those who suffer most—especially people of color, queer people, and low-income people—deserve their lot in life. That belief is antithetical to any serious effort to support families. It’s not about helping people; it’s about controlling them.
Besides being morally bankrupt, the “Manhattan Project for Babies” is likely unconstitutional. Conditioning public benefits on sexual orientation or marital status raises serious equal protection concerns under the Fourteenth Amendment. It’s hard to imagine a federal court upholding a policy that explicitly denies benefits to queer families while granting them to straight couples, but Sam Alito and his regressive fellow travelers can certainly find a justification.
There’s also the Establishment Clause to consider. When state policy is designed around enforcing a religious vision of morality—one that centers marriage as a sacrament and straight couples as the only legitimate parents—it risks crossing the line from public policy into religious indoctrination. Public money cannot be used to impose the theological beliefs of one group onto everyone else. But again, under this Court, who knows?
Regardless of what Trump or the Supreme Court say, we don’t need a plan to drag people back into the 1950s. We need a plan to bring them into a future where they can thrive. That means massive investments in housing, healthcare, childcare, paid leave, and debt relief. It means creating conditions in which people feel safe enough to start and raise families—not compelled to do so out of fear, shame, or desperation.
What Heritage is offering is not a policy. It’s a threat: Conform, or be excluded. Have children the “right” way, or don’t expect support. Align your life with our values, or fend for yourself. This is not what democracy looks like. It’s what authoritarianism looks like—just dressed up in the language of family values.
The post The Right’s Insidious New “Manhattan Project for Babies” appeared first on New Republic.
