Control Disguised as Concern
Education is a cornerstone of progress. It gives us the tools to solve problems, create new ideas, and drive industries forward. A less educated population means fewer discoveries, slower advancements, and stunted economic growth. So, it should concern all of us that the incoming administration, set to take office in January, is comprised of advisors from an organization that openly argues Americans are “too educated.”
The Heritage Foundation, the think tank behind Project 2025 — a conservative plan to restructure the United States under Trump — has made its views on education clear. Several authors of Project 2025 are already set to take key positions in the new administration, putting the Heritage Foundation in a position to shape national policy. Recently, two of their academics, Jay P. Greene and Lindsey M. Burke, argued that the “harmful over-consumption of schooling” is to blame for the falling birth rate in America.
They claim that Americans are becoming “unnecessarily educated,” which discourages them from having children because they are choosing to pursue careers and higher education first before starting a family, a trend they view as detrimental to society.
In their argument, Greene and Burke suggest that education has gone too far, asserting that while it has benefits, “good things can become bad when pursued in excess.” According to them, too much education distracts people from their “primary” roles — raising children and following religious traditions. But is education really the problem? Or are they gaslighting the public for making rational, informed choices?
The idea that higher education is somehow harming us by discouraging family-building is both misleading and out of touch with reality. The declining birth rate in the United States has little to do with people learning “too much” and everything to do with the overwhelming financial and emotional toll of raising children today.
The article compares current fertility rates to those in 1970, suggesting that despite lower incomes then, birth rates were higher. This comparison fails to account for the economic and social changes over the past five decades that influence family planning decisions today. People have more aspirations than just having children, and they don’t want to have to have children if it means raising them in poverty. The ideal structure of one parent raising a child while the other one brings home the money is not feasible anymore.
According to USDA data, raising a child in 2023 could cost an average of $331,933 from the time a child is born to age 18. Add in housing costs, student debt, and limited access to affordable childcare, and it’s no wonder many young Americans feel they simply can’t afford to start a family. There are more than four children for each licensed childcare slot, and infant childcare costs average $11,000 per year, which is more than the price of public college in 33 states. On top of financial challenges, parents also worry about their children’s safety. The fear of shootings in schools is a heartbreaking and real concern. For many, the idea of raising a child in a world where their safety isn’t guaranteed is too overwhelming.
Why should people feel pressured to have children if it means a life of struggle and sacrifice? Many people today want to live fulfilling lives on their terms. They aren’t rejecting parenthood entirely — they’re rejecting the idea that they must have children just to fill jobs in the workforce or meet someone else’s outdated expectations. The truth is, that people don’t want to have children simply to raise them in a world of struggle, precarity, and exploitation.
Another argument from Greene and Burke is that education suppresses religious beliefs. But the evidence doesn’t back this up. Research from sociologist Philip Schwadel shows that higher levels of education often lead to greater religious participation, more devotional practices, and a stronger focus on the role of religion in daily life. So, instead of turning people away from faith, education can deepen their commitment to it.
Targeting education as a societal ill is a fight for control of that society. Education empowers people to think critically and question outdated norms. It makes people less likely to blindly follow ideologies that prioritize obedience over independent thought. Educated people are more likely to demand fair wages, call out injustice, and resist being treated as tools in a system that values profit over people.
For organizations like the Heritage Foundation, this is a direct threat. Their concerns aren’t really about the birth rate. They know that educated people are harder to manipulate and less likely to accept policies that move them backward. Instead of addressing issues like unaffordable healthcare, inadequate parental leave, and a lack of support for struggling families, the Heritage Foundation is pointing fingers at people who are making informed choices for their futures.
Americans want better — better for themselves, for their potential children, and for society as a whole. And that’s exactly what makes them a threat to institutions that rely on an uneducated, compliant workforce.
The Heritage Foundation’s argument against the “over-consumption” of education is not just absurd — it’s a thinly veiled attempt to regain control of the population. Instead of addressing the systems that prevent people from having children, they’ve chosen to demonize education, all while pushing a regressive agenda that prioritizes control over progress.
As the upcoming administration prepares to take office, these ideas are more than just academic musings — they’re a glimpse into the policies that could shape America’s future. So the real question isn’t why birth rates are falling. It’s why organizations like the Heritage Foundation find educated people to be such a threat, and why have they been given such a voice in the incoming administration? Could it be because an educated populace won’t settle for anything less than a future of equity, opportunity, and true freedom? The answer seems clear.
