Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Jul 26, 2025 / 09:00 am (CNA).
Catholic marriage and family expert Brad Wilcox is calling for efforts to make having a family in the U.S. “more attractive” in the wake of “troubling” data released by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showing that U.S. fertility rates are at an all-time low.
“It’s troubling that we’re actually hitting a record low here when it comes to fertility in America,” Wilcox, a sociologist who directs the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, said in an interview with EWTN News Nightly Anchor Mark Irons on July 25.
The CDC released data this week showing the fertility rate in the U.S. plummeted to a record low in 2024.
According to data from the CDC, from 2023 to 2024, the general fertility rate declined from 54.5 to 53.8 births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44. This means that the general fertility rate was less than 1.6 children per woman in 2024, well below “replacement rate,” which is about 2.1 per woman over the course of her life.
The CDC also found that in 2024 birth rates for women ages 15 to 34 declined, while rates for women 35 to 39 remained unchanged. Notably, birth rates for women aged 40 to 44 increased by 2%. The CDC further noted that while the general fertility rate declined, the number of births rose 1% from 2023 to 2024 to a total of 3,628,934.
“This is a pretty marked decline that we’ve been seeing unfolding here in the United States,” Wilcox said, adding: “It’s partly a consequence of the fact that we’re also seeing in recent decades a decline in marriage, which is one of the most important drivers of declining fertility in the U.S.”
The CDC’s latest report is based on more comprehensive data from birth certificates than provisional data released in April. This year’s data is a continuation of a similar downward trend from last year, which also saw birth and fertility rates drop to record lows.
At the time, it was the fewest number of babies born in the United States in a year since 1979 and the lowest fertility rate recorded in American history — just under the previous record low set in 2020.
In reaction to the crisis, the Trump administration has made several efforts to incentivize more births, including through provisions in the “Big Beautiful Bill” passed earlier this month such as a $200 increase in the child tax credit and the $1,000 so-called “baby bonus.” The administration has also backed efforts to expand access to in vitro fertilization through an executive order in February.
Wilcox, who is the author of several books and numerous articles on marriage, fatherhood, parenting, and religion in both academic and popular publications, said “three things are really important” to reverse the societal trend of declining birth rates in the U.S.
In the first place, Wilcox advocated for “making marriage more attractive and attainable.” Secondly, he argued for the need to make owning a home more affordable, especially for first-time buyers.
Lastly, he said, “the third thing that we need to do is to really make having kids more attractive.”
“A lot of Americans think today that becoming a parent is a pathway to misery,” he said. “What we’ve seen in the data is that there are no groups of Americans who are happier than married dads and married moms.”
“I think we need to do a better job of communicating to the broader public how much becoming a parent is a pathway not to misery, but to a life of greater meaning, purpose, and generally happiness,” he concluded.
Wilcox is a Catholic convert and the father of nine. His most recent book is titled “Get Married: Why Americans Must Defy the Elites, Forge Strong Families, and Save Civilization.”
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Good article.
There are many reasons why people don’t have larger families (at least 2 children!). One of the main reasons is the need for two spouses to work at reasonably high-paying jobs in order to be able to afford basic expenses–food, a place to live, and sadly in most areas of the U.S., a car(s), along with insurance, utility bills, household necessities (for example, repairs), TAXES, and of course, children! Women who work all day are already tired when they come home from work, and having many children is exhausting even when a woman doesn’t work. I wish this weren’t the case, but not all women can find a doctor, lawyer, entrepreneur, company president, or millionaire since birth to marry. And sadly, many eligible men have no wish to marry and “tie themselves down.”
Back when I was growing up, there were plenty of “G.I.” houses available–little houses with three small bedrooms, one bathroom with a tub/shower and one sink (and potty, of course!), a galley kitchen with a small dining area, and a smallish (compared to today) living room. These houses were intended for the soldiers returning home, and were available for purchases using their G.I. bill. Same for other expenses–most people ate modest meals at home, most children were involved in church or school sports only (not expensive club sports), and most families watched TV and the occasional movie, played together in the back yard, and had picnics and outings as their main forms of recreation.
Now, people expect to live in “HGTV homes” that cost six figures and also require a full makeover to “personalize” the home.
Also, back then, the factories were booming, and many young men (and women) with only a high school education worked in these shops, where they not only received good wages and benefits, but enjoyed social activities like bowling leagues, baseball tourneys, and company picnics. A collage education or trade school were not necessary to find employment, and even nurses were often trained in short on-the-job courses.
Food was cheap, most women stayed home to raise their children (and also raise a pretty big vegetable garden!), and most people only went “out to eat” once or twice a year for a very special occasion. Fast food restaurants other than very small burger places (“soda shoppes!” were rare and were generally frequented by teens, not families. Meals at home with family or friends nourished not only the body and kept it reasonably thin and in shape, but also nourished the soul
If a family had a television, they only had ONE television, and it only received a few channels, and the kids weren’t much interested in watching “grown-up shows,” so other than on Saturday mornings (cartoons starting at 6 a.m. and ending at lunchtime!) and on Sunday nights (Disney!), the kids didn’t spend hours in front of the TV. They played outside where Mom could watch them, but if they explored the neighborhood, Mom didn’t worry about them, because all the other moms were watching out for the neighborhood children.
Schools were safe and the teachers actually taught their classes–there were no “specialists”. And they didn’t demand a high salary that raised taxes to painful levels for many families.
Times have changed. It’s still possible for a mom or dad to stay home, or for a grandparent (like me!) to watch children if both parents work, but…it’s just not the norm. I don’t think it ever will be the norm again in the U.S. I wish it would. Kudos to the families who are making it work, but…even those families run into family trouble at times.