Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

DNC Gives Vice-Chair David Hogg Ultimatum; Trump Admin. Baby Boom Incentives. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired April 24, 2025 - 10:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[10:30:00]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: New this morning, Ken Martin, the head of the Democratic National Committee, is issuing an ultimatum to new vice chair David Hogg. He's calling on hog to back down from his threat to primary Democrats he deems ineffective or give up his leadership position.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEN MARTIN, DNC CHAIR: No DNC officer should ever attempt to influence the outcome of a primary election, whether on behalf of an incumbent or a challenger. Hey, I have great respect for David Hogg. I think he's an amazing young leader who's done so much already to help move our movement forward. And while, you know, certainly, you know, I understand what he's trying to do, as I've said to him, if you want to challenge incumbents, you're more than free to do that, but just not as an officer of the DNC.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: CNN Senior Political Analyst Mark Preston is here in the Situation Room with us. Mark, at a time when Democrats are trying to show united front, this infighting certainly isn't helping.

MARK PRESTON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: No, and it certainly shows really the state of politics right now as we see it. Not only are we seeing, you know, this fight within the Democratic Party, we've seen it in the Republican Party right now. And what we've seen David Hogg do is try to infiltrate the party from the inside and try to enact change that he wants to see.

Now, I will say he is going to be very unlucky, I would suspect, in his efforts to do so, but this is going to cause the Democratic National Committee a lot of headache, a lot of heartache over the next four and a half months.

BROWN: Yes. And you know, Hogg, he's young, right? He represents this new young generation for leaders for the Democrats. Is there any risk concern about pushing him out and hurting the party's outreach to those younger voters that we know Trump surprisingly did well with in 2024?

PRESTON: Well, you know, it's interesting if you -- if we just saw -- if you go back and you listen to how Ken Martin talked about David Hogg, talked about him being a person who was who was great, he was very effusive about him. The DNC wants to make sure that they put this out there as something that is not about David Hogg, that it is just simply about incumbency. And in -- as he said, if you want to take on an incumbent Democrat, then do it from outside the party.

BLITZER: Mark Preston, thank you very, very much.

BROWN: Well, it's good see you, Mark. And coming up, the Trump Administration eyes incentives for a new baby boom. We'll talk with a couple who are part of a growing movement in the U.S. to have more kids.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:35:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We'll support baby boomers and we will support baby bonuses for a new baby boom. How does that sound? That sounds pretty great. I want to baby boom.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: A bonus for having babies. According to The New York Times, the White House is hearing ideas on how to boost fertility, including a $5,000 bonus to have more children. It comes as the U.S. fertility rate hovers near a record low. American women are less likely to have babies now than ever.

Simone and Malcolm Collins, the founders of Pronatalist.org sent the White House several draft executive orders to help reverse declining birth rates. Just to be clear, these are just proposals, nothing is concrete or has been decided yet by the Trump administration.

Simone and Malcolm join us now for this conversation. Thank you for being here. So, Simone, first to you, can you just explain to our viewers what pronatalism is and how you've put your beliefs into action in your own life? And by the way, Andy's joining us too, your child. We should note.

[10:40:00]

SIMONE COLLINS, FOUNDER, PRONATALIST.ORG: That's right. Pronatalism -- oh, my goodness, is about believing that kids are good, family is good, and the future is bright. And it's not about shaming people into having kids, coercing people into having kids, limiting reproductive choice, it is merely about making it easier for families who want to have kids and more kids to do so by ideally just lifting a lot of the regulatory bloat that makes their lives more difficult and supporting a culture in which families are accepted.

BROWN: And then, how have you put those beliefs into your own life? Because you have several kids and you have one on the way, right? S. COLLINS: Right. Well, first, you don't have to be a parent, a mother or a father to be pronatalist, but we put our money where our mouth is. I have about a kid a year. Our -- we have four kids. Fifth is on the way. And our fifth is five years old. So, we want to have as many kids as we can. And because I have to have C-sections, that basically means until I lose my uterus in a surgery, I'm going to keep having kids.

BROWN: Wow. Malcolm, to bring you in on this, a Pew research poll asked adults under 50 why they aren't having kids, and the number one reason was they just don't want to. 57 percent said that. What do you say to that? Does that surprise you?

MALCOLM COLLINS, FOUNDER, PRONATALIST.ORG: No, I think that that's a very accurate reading of why people aren't having kids. A lot of people will say, well, it's because we can't afford to have kids. But generally, the less money you make or the less money a country makes on average, the more kids that they're having.

So, what we're really seeing is that people do not want to sacrifice their quality of life, or they don't see it as worth it to bring additional people into the world, to pay to the future the debt that we owe the past.

BROWN: And there are certainly though people who do say, look, I want more kids. I can't afford it, right. I mean that -- or I just can't afford to have kids at all. You say your suggestions sent to the Trump administration are low cost and aimed at making life easier on parents. In that same poll we showed, you saw 36 percent of people say they don't have kids because they can't afford it. According to Babycenter, parents are estimated to spend more than $20,000 on baby related costs in the first year. So, one of the ideas, as I mentioned, being floated is a $5,000 baby bonus. What do you think, Malcolm?

M. COLLINS: I don't know -- like a lot of countries have tried baby bonuses in the past and they do not appear to have, especially in the $5,000 range, a big effect on fertility. But I've seen the administration floating some other policies that I thought could have a much bigger impact.

Specifically, policies that further center in glorify the role of motherhood in our society, which I think right now is not done. And if my, for example, daughters don't grow up seeing their mom respected in her role as a mom or mothers more broadly seen as a positive thing, you know, why would they want to go and have kids themselves?

BROWN: You know, and we do, right now, live in a country where women don't get equal pay. There is no universal paid family leave. And federal programs on reproductive health and childcare have taken a heavy hit from DOGE's sweeping cuts, and we have the highest maternity mortality rate among all high-income nations. Simone, do any of these proposals potentially fix these issues?

S. COLLINS: Unfortunately, changing those issues hasn't really been shown that conclusively to increase birth rates. And when we look at pronatalism, we really are just looking at policies that increase or decrease birth rates. So, the biggest factor is culture and other factors are just things that make parents' lives harder. But we haven't seen much evidence that, for example, changing parental leave or providing more medical benefits has an effect ultimately on birth rates.

BROWN: But do you think there should be more parental leave?

S. COLLINS: I don't actually, because it has a lot of adverse effects that are not accounted for. It could even cause organizations to discriminate against hiring women because they know that they have to pay for generous parental leave and then they be me more, subconsciously, likely to promote and select men or women who don't plan on having any kids at all, which would ultimately put parents at more of a disadvantage.

The biggest thing in workplace, I think, is allowing for more generous work from home policies, which really allow families to both have kids and work really easily without having to choose one path.

BROWN: So -- and I'll get back to you, Malcolm, but I want to follow up with you, Simone, because you said you also support reproductive rights for women. So, how do you reconcile your mission for families to have more babies with that? I just think some people might find that surprising.

SCIUTTO: In countries that have banned abortions and otherwise limited women's reproduction of choice, we've ultimately seen, while there's a short spike in fertility, then there's a pretty steep drop off. This is just not something that really positively affects birth rates. I think people have a religious right to be against abortion.

[10:45:00]

But in the end, affecting access to it should be based on your religious beliefs and groups. And we don't think on a national level. Though there are some, you know, policies we think around, like, abortion that are a little bit too far or too close that could use some reform. So, it just doesn't move the needle. That's it.

And in the end, I think restricting women's rights and being, in general, creepy about women's reproductive rights is going to cause a backlash. It's going to say, you know, women will not feel comfortable with that. And we found that in countries that are more religiously conservative on the whole, there's actually relatively lower birth rates. And I think a lot of that comes down to women just feeling pressured, feeling like there are standards they can't meet with, feeling like there's a lot of external pressure.

And really, pronatalism is something that's endogenous. It comes from within. And if people don't feel internally and intrinsically motivated to have families, they're not going to do it. So, don't force people, it doesn't work.

BROWN: And also, Malcolm, to bring you back in, you know, there are women who want to be a mom, who want to have kids, and they just can't, right? And we should note that one of the proposals that you all have proposed to the White House that I read, is to introduce a national medal of motherhood to American mothers with six or more children. You know, this has been done in the past.

You look at Hungary, Kazakhstan, Russia, and the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. As you know, in Germany, Nazi leaders carry this out to promote selective breeding. Does it matter to you all who has more babies in America or is this a universal thing for you?

M. COLLINS: Not in a huge way. I mean, keep in mind, this is also something that's done was in like modern France. It's been done in its broader range of political ideologies from Nazi Germany to communist Russia. And I think it's because it makes sense to most people.

What seems very misogynist to me is that we live in a country where we have national medals for great scientists and great warriors and people who move the economy forwards. And yet, the one category of greatness, which is relegated to women, we do not give out any recognition currently. Now, I would note, we have in the past in the U.S. given out medals like this. And to me it just feels very misogynistic to limit women in this way.

BROWN: But just to -- just for clarity. So, basically you all are for anyone in America to have more babies, it doesn't matter who they are? Because -- I ask that because at the recent pronatalist conference, you know, there were some speakers who were in a different faction from you all, part of the religious right within the movement who indicated, you know, only certain people with certain political beliefs should be the ones, you know, procreating more. Is that what you believe too or no? You -- do you believe it should be universal?

M. COLLINS: I mean, I think that this is a nuanced question. So, for example, I would promote fertility rates more in groups that are on the verge of extinction or have very low fertility rates. So, an example of that in the United States would be Native Americans. Native Americans have very low fertility rates, that they might be around one TFR right now, or under that at the moment, which means their population is haling every generation. Meaning that over the next a hundred years, we'll probably see as great a die off of Native American culture as we did during the early colonial period, which is just absolutely wild. So, to say, oh, we need to treat everyone as exactly equal in this respect is not true.

I'd also say that we have to keep in mind that the economic tragedy that is downstream of falling fertility rates isn't downstream of the number of people, it is downstream of the number of taxpayers. It's that systems start breaking when, you know, right now for every 1.8 people paying into the American tax system, there's one person living off of that. And when you get to around that 1.5 number, things start breaking.

And so, you have to say, oh, well, then, you know, if you give sort of blanket payments, for example, those blanket payments are going to be much more valuable to people who have less money and thus are paying less money into the tax system and might actually cause more of a drain on the tax system. You know, as we've seen in studies, people who are on welfare have kids at three times the rate of people who aren't on welfare, that are also on welfare. And it would be great if we could figure out equality as a country, if we could figure out a way to get everyone, no matter who they are as kid to an equal level of economic prosperity. But we haven't figured that out. And I wouldn't bet, you know, Social Security collapsing, Medicare collapsing, Medicaid collapsing on us figuring that out at this generation.

BROWN: Let me just get this in for Simone as we wrap this up. We have this statement, Simone, from Dr. Arthur Caplan with the division of Medical Ethics at NYU. And he says, quote, "They want white Christian babies from the right parents, perceived as smart. And a $5,000 baby bonus is ludicrously small and inadequate. What motivates having babies is fiscal and social optimism. Both in scare supply among young people living with their parents." Simone, what is your response to that?

[10:50:00]

S. COLLINS: He is absolutely right that optimism and excitement for the future and a belief that people's in -- are good is -- I would add, are very, very important factors. And $5,000 isn't enough. A lot of people have calculated actually that it's more like $300,000 would be enough to move the needle for parents.

But a really big thing about optimism for the future is just signaling support of parents and families, which we don't do right now. We signal support of that after you do a whole bunch of things, like get your career in order, get your education in order. So, he's not wrong about that.

It's very important that we get to a place like that, but we also live in a society in which people's standards are completely out of whack. People are still living with their parents and they don't have homes and they don't have families because we prioritize things like first get educated, first go to college, first get your job, first get your house, first get all these things, and then maybe start dating and get married and have kids.

And I think if we rethought the way that we set up life, which we've been doing very differently, very recently we would be able to get back to a place where people are flourishing more, where they're more financially sound and more guests, they're having more kids. It's not about suddenly giving people a ton more money per se, it's about changing the way that we live life and what we prioritize.

BROWN: All right. Simone and Malcolm Collins, thank you so much, and Andy as well. She wanted to join the conversation. All right. Thanks. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:55:00]

BROWN: Happening tonight, the NFL draft kicks off in Green Bay, Wisconsin, home of the Packers.

BLITZER: Coy Wire is joining us right now, Coy, what can we expect tonight when the commissioner calls the first pick?

COY WIRE, CNN SPORTS ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Yes. The massive three-day spectacle. You can expect part lottery drawing, part fashion show, and a whole bunch of circus. I was on the stage in Tennessee a few years ago to make the Bill's third round selection, looking out at a sea of people that are expected to be at this year's draft at the iconic Lambeau Field in Green Bay. 250,000 people over the three days. 12

million people watched on TV last year's, first round of the draft. And tonight, let's take a look at who has the top 10 picks. On the clock first, the Tennessee Titans, and then you have the Cleveland Browns and New York Giants. And the general consensus is that Cam Ward, the quarterback out of Miami, will be the first pick taken going to Tennessee.

Here you're looking at Shedeur Sanders. Where will he go? The son of Deion Sanders, the quarterback out of Colorado. Some feel he could go number three to the Giants. Number two pick is probably going to be Travis Hunter, the two-way star, offensive and defensive star out of Colorado, Travis Hunter. He could be going to the Browns at number two. We shall see.

Also on the clock tonight, all the teams, every fan base is going to have an opportunity for now to see their team potentially draft in the first round. There have been no trades ahead of this draft, first time since 1967, Wolf. So, that means your Buffalo Bills, the fighting Wolf Blitzers are all going to be in this first round tonight at number 30. We'll see if they make the safe pick. Many say they're going to go with a safety to go their fight for your Bills. Wolf.

BLITZER: I love it when they talk about the blitzing linebackers or some calling it blitzers. Coy Wire, a former Buffalo Bill himself. Thank you very, very much.

WIRE: You got it.

BLITZER: And we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:00:00]