MAGA Baby Bucks

Summary

Podcast Summary: What A Day – Episode: MAGA Baby Bucks

Title: MAGA Baby Bucks
Host: Erin Ryan (in place of Jane Coaston)
Release Date: April 23, 2025
Guest: Carter Sherman, Reproductive Health and Justice Reporter for The Guardian and author of the forthcoming book The Second Sex and the Next Generation’s Fight Over Its Future

---

Introduction

In the April 23, 2025 episode of What A Day, host Erin Ryan delves into the Trump administration's fervent push to counter the declining birth rate in the United States. Titled “MAGA Baby Bucks,” the episode explores the administration's pronatalist policies, their motivations, potential impacts, and the broader socio-political implications.

Trump Administration’s Pronatalist Policies

The episode opens with the revelation that the Trump administration is deeply concerned about the U.S. declining birth rates, viewing it as a threat to maintaining America’s demographic and economic stability. Erin Ryan introduces Carter Sherman to discuss the various strategies the administration is proposing to encourage higher birth rates.

Carter Sherman explains the range of proposed policies, highlighting both feasible and questionable measures:

“The Trump administration officials want you to get pregnant and stay pregnant. Nothing creepy about that.” ([02:07])

She points out that while some ideas, like baby bonuses, involve substantial financial incentives, others are more symbolic, such as awarding medals to mothers with six or more children.

Notable Policies Discussed:

• Baby Bonuses: Proposals include substantial financial incentives, such as $5,000 per mother, and expanded child tax credits.
• Medals of Honor for Motherhood: Symbolic rewards for mothers with large families, potentially adorned with precious materials to honor their contributions.

Financial Feasibility and Implementation Challenges

Carter Sherman addresses the economic implications of these pronatalist policies:

“I think some of these policies are very expensive. A baby bonus, $5,000 per mother, expanding the child tax credit. Those are things that would require enormous government spending.” ([02:07])

She expresses skepticism about the administration’s ability to fund such initiatives, given their broader agenda of slashing government budgets. Sherman suggests that if these policies proceed, they are more likely to implement the less costly options, such as medals for motherhood, rather than substantial financial incentives.

Current Pronatalist Moves and Political Strategy

Sherman details the administration’s strategic moves to support regions with higher birth and marriage rates, which often align with Republican strongholds:

“Republicans do tend to have higher birth rates and higher marriage rates than Democrats. So directing more resources towards areas where the Trump administration, frankly, has more voters.” ([03:35])

This approach indicates a targeted strategy to bolster support within the party’s base rather than a nationwide initiative to support all American families.

Contrasting Policies: Encouragement vs. Discouragement

While promoting pronatalist measures, the Trump administration simultaneously undermines factors that could support family growth. Sherman highlights significant cutbacks in reproductive health services:

“The Trump administration is dramatically slashing the work of researchers that actually work on these issues. We've seen researchers who work on things like maternal mortality lose their jobs.” ([04:20])

These cuts negatively impact access to contraception, IVF treatments, and maternal health research, potentially discouraging family expansion despite the administration's pronatalist rhetoric.

Effectiveness of Pronatalist Policies Globally

When questioned about the effectiveness of such policies, Sherman provides a critical perspective:

“Not really. We don't actually really know what works to incentivize people into having more kids.” ([05:04])

She notes that even countries with established pronatalist policies, like those in Scandinavia, have not conclusively demonstrated significant increases in birth rates. Sherman underscores that societal advancements and increased options for women often correlate with lower birth rates, suggesting that enforced incentives may not align with individual desires or social trends.

Underlying Reasons for Declining Birth Rates

Sherman identifies key reasons behind the declining birth rates, emphasizing that the Trump administration may not be adequately addressing these concerns:

“One of the main reasons that people cite... is the climate and concerns about climate change. So I don't really think that the Trump administration is taking that seriously as a concern.” ([05:39])

This omission indicates a potential disconnect between the administration’s policies and the genuine concerns influencing Americans' decisions about starting families.

The Tech and Religious Right's Pronatalist Alliance

The discussion shifts to the unusual alliance between conservative religious groups and tech elites in promoting pronatalism. Sherman highlights internal conflicts within this alliance, particularly regarding reproductive technologies like IVF:

“The Heritage Foundation... is uncomfortable with the use of the technology as anything but a last resort.” ([07:04])

She explains that while some Republicans support increased access to IVF, others, especially religious conservatives, oppose it on moral grounds, viewing embryos and fetuses as persons. This division threatens the stability of the pronatalist movement within the right-wing spectrum.

Future Directions and Alternatives

Concluding the discussion, Sherman questions the viability of incentivizing higher birth rates and suggests alternative solutions to address demographic concerns:

“If you are concerned about falling birth rates... immigration and encouraging immigration... is a way to fix that.” ([09:15])

She advocates for making the United States more welcoming to immigrants as a more effective strategy to counterbalance the declining native birth rates, noting that this approach aligns better with sustainable demographic and economic growth.

Conclusion

The episode “MAGA Baby Bucks” provides a comprehensive analysis of the Trump administration’s pronatalist policies, highlighting the complexities and contradictions inherent in their approach. Through insightful dialogue with Carter Sherman, Erin Ryan elucidates the challenges of implementing effective pronatalist measures and underscores the importance of addressing underlying societal issues rather than relying solely on financial incentives. The episode concludes by suggesting that immigration may offer a more pragmatic solution to demographic concerns, offering listeners a nuanced perspective on a contentious political issue.

---

Notable Quotes:

1. Carter Sherman ([02:07]):
   “The Trump administration officials want you to get pregnant and stay pregnant. Nothing creepy about that.”

2. Carter Sherman ([03:35]):
   “Republicans do tend to have higher birth rates and higher marriage rates than Democrats. So directing more resources towards areas where the Trump administration, frankly, has more voters.”

3. Carter Sherman ([04:20]):
   “The Trump administration is dramatically slashing the work of researchers that actually work on these issues. We've seen researchers who work on things like maternal mortality lose their jobs.”

4. Carter Sherman ([05:04]):
   “Not really. We don't actually really know what works to incentivize people into having more kids.”

5. Carter Sherman ([05:39]):
   “One of the main reasons that people cite... is the climate and concerns about climate change. So I don't really think that the Trump administration is taking that seriously as a concern.”

6. Carter Sherman ([07:04]):
   “The Heritage Foundation... is uncomfortable with the use of the technology as anything but a last resort.”

7. Carter Sherman ([09:15]):
   “If you are concerned about falling birth rates... immigration and encouraging immigration... is a way to fix that.”

---

This summary captures the essence of the “MAGA Baby Bucks” episode, providing listeners with a clear and detailed understanding of the discussions surrounding the Trump administration’s efforts to influence birth rates in the United States.

Transcript

[Erin Ryan]

It's Wednesday, April 23rd. I'm Erin Ryan in for Jane Coston. And this is what a day. The show that says, way to go, meanies. You're not going to have Elon Musk to kick around anymore. Musk announced Tuesday that he'll be stepping back from Doge after Tesla reported a 71% drop in earnings during the first quarter of 2025. We're mournfully waving our chainsaws around in solidarity on today's show. Sun poisoned. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Announced that America's children will now be protected from the menace of artificial food dyes, thanks to the Trump administration. And in immigration courtrooms, unaccompanied migrant children were not given attorneys, leaving more and more kids to represent themselves in their own deportation hearings, also thanks to the Trump administration. But first, MAGA is in full on panic mode about the declining birth rate in the US and so the doors of the West Wing are wide open to figuring out how to get more babies born around here. That's right. Trump administration officials want you to get pregnant and stay pregnant. Nothing creepy about that. That's according to a New York Times article that ran this week detailing some of the solutions that have been presented to the Trump administration by concerned pronatalists, that is, people who believe that it is important to increase the birth rate in order to assure that all of America doesn't turn into a giant episode of the Golden Girls in a generation. Some of their concerns are reasonable, some of them are racist, and many of the solutions they've come up with are straight up weird. But will any of them work? To get more into the right wing panic around the coming baby apocalypse, we called up Carter Sherman, a reproductive health and justice reporter for the Guardian and author of the forthcoming book the Second Sex and the Next Generation's Fight Over Its Future. Carter, welcome to what a day.

[Carter Sherman]

Thank you for having me.

[Erin Ryan]

So what was your reaction to those policies the Trump administration is reportedly considering to convince people to have more kids, like baby bonuses and medals of honor for mothers of six children or more.

[Carter Sherman]

Honestly, I didn't find it to be a huge surprise. I think the Trump administration has been pretty open about what it would like the American family to look like. I think the thing that really struck me, though, is that some of these policies are very expensive. You know, a baby bonus, $5,000 per mother, expanding the child tax credit. Those are things that would require enormous government spending. And we have not really seen the Trump administration be interested in that. If anything, they're slashing the government budget dramatically. So I think what would likely happen if any of these policies come to pass are the cheaper policies, like the medals for motherhood.

[Erin Ryan]

I don't know, those metals could be pretty fancy. They could put, like, diamonds in them. They could just plate them in gold.

[Carter Sherman]

I think they better if they're going to be giving them to women with six children.

[Erin Ryan]

I know I've got two. And I don't know if a medal could make a third one worth it. What are some pronatalist moves that the Trump administration has made so far?

[Carter Sherman]

Well, the major headline move that the Trump administration has taken is that the transportation secretary put out a memo saying that the administration should direct its resources in transportation and supporting infrastructure towards areas that have broader birth rates and marriage rates that are higher than the national average. The interesting thing about this is that actually, Republicans do tend to have higher birth rates and higher marriage rates than Democrats. So in practice, this would mean directing more resources towards areas where the Trump administration, frankly, has more voters.

[Erin Ryan]

That's so interesting. It was a memo, though. Is it actual policy or is it just a directive that Secretary Duffy issued?

[Carter Sherman]

I don't think we've actually seen any real action come out of this. And this is also what is interesting about the Trump administration push towards pronatalism is they have a lot of rhetoric around pronatalism, but it's not clear that they're actually moving to support American families into having the kinds of families and the size of families that Americans may want. It seems like a really big. It seems like meat for their base, oftentimes more so than it actually is a real policy commitment.

[Erin Ryan]

And what are some moves that the Trump administration has made so far that you would consider maybe discouraging people from having more children? On a practical level, what we've seen.

[Carter Sherman]

The Trump administration do is dramatically slash the work of researchers that actually work on these issues. So we've seen researchers who work on things like maternal mortality lose their jobs. We've seen researchers who work on things like contraception guidelines lose their jobs. We've seen researchers who work on things like IVF lose their jobs. And at the end of the day, those are things that will likely make it harder for people to have the number of kids they want, have kids when and how they want, which means that ultimately families could suffer.

[Erin Ryan]

Other countries have implemented policies to incentivize women to have children. Those policies range anywhere from literally paying families to have kids to providing generous family benefits. Have we seen other governments actually successfully boost their birth rates through policy?

[Carter Sherman]

Not really. And that's the thing that's really interesting about this pronatalist push is that we don't actually really know what works to incentivize people into having more kids. And we have seen more left leaning countries do this. Right. Like Scandinavia has things where they, for example, give baby bott boxes to new mothers. But it seems like, you know, the more societies advance, the more options they give women. The thing is that women might just not want to have a lot of kids.

[Erin Ryan]

Yeah. And on that note, what are the actual reasons that young Americans don't want to have kids? Is the Trump administration even tracking those things before they're trying to come up with solutions?

[Carter Sherman]

Well, one of the main reasons that people cite when they talk about not wanting to have kids is the climate and concerns about climate change. So I don't really think that the Trump administration is taking that seriously as a concern.

[Erin Ryan]

Conservatives, religious nut jobs and tech bros have formed an unlikely alliance under the banner of pronatalism, joining forces to fear monger around the falling birth rate in the U.S. vice President J.D. vance has said that it's a, quote, catastrophic problem after famously hating on, quote, childless cat ladies. Billionaire Elon Musk said that, quote, civilizations will disappear if the birth rate continues to decline globally and that, quote, humanity is dying. He also likes to flex the fact that he has at least 14 kids, seemingly implying that he's helping save humanity, I guess. But what are the actual consequences of declining birth rates that we should be concerned about as reasonable people? Like, why should we also be invested in getting women to have more kids, but in a less weird way?

[Carter Sherman]

I don't know that the solution to the problems that people cite is actually convincing women to have more kids. The concern here is that as a population ages, the labor force gets older. We're not going to have a younger labor force that can support that aging population.

[Erin Ryan]

Something I find interesting about this rise in pronatalism on the right is the divide over in vitro fertilization or ivf. Like religious conservatives are generally opposed to ivf. In the Times piece, it's pretty clear that the Heritage foundation, for example, is uncomfortable with the use of the technology as anything but a last resort. But one of Trump's big campaign promises was to pay for IVF treatments for anybody who wants it. He even signed an executive order that called for policy recommendations about how to actually do that. Is the Trump administration or are Republicans at large doing anything else to boost the country's birth rate or even support People who already do want to have kids and plan their families.

[Carter Sherman]

I think that it sort of depends on where you are in the country, how much support you're actually getting from the government. As far as IVF goes, I mean, we have seen efforts from Republicans to both push access to IVF and shy away from pushing access to ivf. For example, we've seen in Alabama, there's been efforts to basically shut down the procedure entirely through the Alabama State Supreme Court. I think this divide over IVF might be the thing that could break the alliance between the tech right and the religious right. Because for the religious right, this is a very deeply held belief. They think that embryos and fetuses are people. And so IVF as it's currently practiced is just incompatible with that belief.

[Erin Ryan]

Yeah. I've also heard some noise being made by the tech bro. Right. About developing artificial wombs. How do American religious conservatives feel about something like that?

[Carter Sherman]

I think we're so far away from artificial wombs that I don't know that they've really taken a stance. That said, they have pretty firm ideas about what women are for. Right. They like women being wives and mothers. And so I don't know that I think artificial wombs really fit into that vision of good life.

[Erin Ryan]

When I first read about artificial wombs, I remember thinking, these guys really don't know how pregnancy works, do they? They're just sort of like pitching ideas.

[Carter Sherman]

Well, there is, you know, a feminist interest in artificial wombs and giving women more options to avoid having to take on the burden of child rearing and childbearing. But, yeah, I don't know that I necessarily trust Elon Musk to make that artificial womb for me.

[Erin Ryan]

All right, so what is the answer here? Like, how do we convince people to have more kids?

[Carter Sherman]

I don't know that there is an answer. The data doesn't show that there's an answer. But if you are concerned about falling birth rates in this country, it does seem like immigration and encouraging immigration and making the United States a welcoming place for immigrants is a way to fix that. And that is not necessarily the direction that we're heading in right now.

[Erin Ryan]

Carter, thank you so much for joining us.

[Carter Sherman]

Thank you for having me.

[Erin Ryan]

That was Carter Sherman, a reproductive health and justice reporter for the Guardian. We'll link to her work in our show notes. We'll get to more of the news in a moment, but if you like the show, make sure to subscribe. Leave a five star review on Apple Podcasts, watch us on YouTube and share with your friends more to come after some ads. This episode of what a Day is brought to you by Acorns. I have to say I did not get a lot of financial education as a kid. I grew up middle class when I was first learning about what stocks are. To prepare for my Series 7 exam before I was going to go work for a financial firm, I had to Google what is a stock. I would have been way ahead of studying for that exam if I had known that before. April is Financial Literacy month. That's right, they made a whole month reminding you to take control of your money. Good news is you don't need 30 days. Acorns makes it easy to start saving and investing for your future in just five minutes. You don't need to be an expert. Acorns will recommend a diversified portfolio that matches you and your money goals. You don't need to be rich. Acorns lets you get started with the spare money you've got right now. Even if all you've got is spare change, you don't need a ton of time. You can create your Acorns account and start investing in just five minutes. You don't need to feel like financial wellness is impossible. Acorns gives you small, simple steps to get you and your money on track. Basically, Acorns does the hard part so you can give your money a chance to grow. Sign up now and join the other 14 million all time customers who have already saved and invested over $25 billion with Acorns. Head to acorns.com wad or download the Acorns app to get started. Paid non client endorsement compensation provides incentive to positively promote Acorns tier 1 compensation provided investing involves risk. Acorns Advisors LLC and SEC registered investment advisor view important [e-mail] wad worried about.

[Tommy Vietor]

What ingredients are hiding in your groceries? Let us take the guesswork out. We're thrive market the online grocery store with the highest quality standards in the industry. We restrict 1000 plus ingredients so you can trust that you'll only find the best high quality, organic and sustainable brands all free of the junk with savings up to 30% off and fast carbon neutral shipping. You get top trusted groceries at your door and you can stop worrying about what your kids get their hands on. Start [e-mail] podcast for 30% off your first order and a free gift.

[Nish Kumar]

Hey it's Tommy here and Nish Kumar.

[Tommy Vietor]

From Pod Save the uk.

[Nish Kumar]

If you are only listening to our podcast, you're missing out because we've got full episodes and a ton of exclusive content right here on YouTube.

[Tommy Vietor]

We're talking deep dives, unhinged debates, and digital originals from from Crooked shows that you won't find anywhere else like Pod.

[Nish Kumar]

Save the World and Pod Save the UK Doing exclusive bonus content where we discuss how the labor movement is doing the Farage Musk drama, and what Trump's America looks like from the outside.

[Tommy Vietor]

Spoiler alert Bad.

[Nish Kumar]

Pretty shitty.

[Tommy Vietor]

And extended uncut interviews with some of our biggest guests on Pod Save the uk. So if you've always wondered what British people look like, now's your chance to find out.

[Nish Kumar]

And there's tasteful Nudes of Ben. Go to crooked.com/videos to find all of our video podcasts and digital originals. And don't forget to hit subscribe on YouTube so you never miss a beat.

[Erin Ryan]

Here's what else we're following today.

[Nish Kumar]

Head of lines.

[Donald Trump]

Never did the press runs away with things no, I have no intention of firing him.

[Erin Ryan]

That clip has the same energy as the no, I'm just hearing about it now for the first time clip that everybody has seen. Now, in an abrupt reversal, President Donald Trump Tuesday denied ever having plans to fire his hand picked Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.

[Donald Trump]

I would like to see him be a little more active in terms of his idea to lower interest rates. This is a perfect time to lower interest rates. If he doesn't, is it the end? No, it's not. But it would be good timing, says.

[Erin Ryan]

The man who last week claimed he could fire Powell if he wanted, that he couldn't wait for his termination and whose own advisors said they were looking into it. But sure, the press ran away with the story. Those crazy reporters printing things you said. Trump's comments about Powell came after another day of bad economic headlines for the White House. In a new report, the International Monetary Fund predicted weaker global growth this year than it earlier forecasted, and it specifically pointed to sky high tariff rates not seen in a century. The IMF also predicted the US Will take a bigger economic hit than our peers. But always one to put a rosy spin on Trump's wild gamble with the casino of the world economy. Press Secretary Caroline Levitt said the White House is making progress on new deals with our trading partners. During her press briefing Tuesday, she said more than a dozen countries have submitted proposals to avoid the heavy reciprocal tariffs Trump announced at the beginning of this month and then paused. We are moving at Trump speed to ensure these deals are made on behalf of the American worker and the American people. Trump's speed, by the way, is the top speed of a golf cart when it comes to the ongoing trade war with China. Levitt also said, quote, the ball is moving in the right direction on a trade deal. No other details were given. The Trump administration has insisted it could strike around 90 trade deals over the 90 day pause on some of the president's bigger tariff plans. It's been about two weeks since Trump took us back to pre Liberation Day existence by reversing the tariffs he laid out on Liberation Day. And so far the number of deals struck sits at, well, it sits at zero, zilch, nada. Big old goose egg. Less than a week after Google lost a major antitrust case over its advertising monopoly, the tech company was back in court Monday. This time it was to discuss ways to remedy another monopoly it was found to hold over online search. Toward the end of Trump's first term in office, the Department of Justice and a group of states sued Google. They accused it of acting illegally to maintain its dominance in search, in part by striking deals with other companies like Apple to make Google the default browser on their products. Federal judge agreed with the DOJ in August. Now comes the tough part, unwinding the monopoly. During opening statements Monday, DOJ lawyers argued Google should be forced to sell off its web browser Chrome and barred from making those exclusive deals with other big tech companies. The DOJ also wants to prevent Google from making similar exclusives deals in the future with its AI products. Lawyers for Google say that's way too much to ask. In a blog post before the hearing Sunday, the company's vice president of regulatory affairs said the recommendations would, quote, hurt America's consumers, economy and technological leadership. The court hearings will play out over the next three weeks and depending on how things go, they could radically reshape Google's parent company, Alphabet, and it could change how billions of people use the Internet. The judge overseeing the case said he's likely to make his ruling in August or September. Google has vowed to appeal.

[Marty Makary]

Today, the FDA is taking action to remove petroleum based food dyes from the US food supply and from medications.

[Robert F. Kennedy Jr.]

For the last 50 years, American children.

[Marty Makary]

Have increasingly been living in a toxic soup of synthetic chemicals.

[Erin Ryan]

Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary announced Tuesday the steps the department is taking to phase out those selected synthetic food dyes across the color spectrum. And of course, joining Makary at that news conference in D.C. was Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He applauded the progress.

[Robert F. Kennedy Jr.]

When I went in a few months or about a month ago to meet with a few food companies, we were, I was talking with my staff about these petroleum based dyes and I said if they want to add petroleum, they want to eat petroleum, they ought to add it themselves at home. They shouldn't be feeding it to the rest of us.

[Erin Ryan]

Okay, Mr. Cod Liver Oil. And like many announcements from this administration, this was an idea or a wish list, not an actual plan. Removing artificial dyes from our food isn't new either. Some states like California and West Virginia have already passed laws restricting certain dyes in food. The FDA says the totality of scientific evidence indicates that most children have no adverse effects when eating foods that contain color additives, even though it concludes some evidence suggests certain children may be sensitive to the dyes. Lawyers and advocates for immigrants are reporting that an increasing number of children have been appearing in immigration court without legal representation. That's according to a Gothamist article out Tuesday. Advocates are concerned that children left to fend for themselves in court are more likely to be deported. But why are more migrant children showing up to immigration court with no attorneys? If your first thought was that it might have something to do with the Trump administration, then you'd be right. The administration last month ended part of a contract that funds legal fees for children who enter the US on their own. In a memo reviewed by the New York Times, the government had ordered more than 100 nonprofits to stop their work in representing minors. Subcontractors say 26,000 kids are at risk of losing their attorneys because of the contract cancellation. A federal judge earlier this month ordered legal aid to be temporarily restored to migrant kids without parents in the U.S. but advocates are still ringing the alarm bells. According to Gothamist, most minors who enter the US without an adult speak Spanish and are from Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador or Mexico. In New York, children in shelters appeared virtually for a recent immigration hearing. A child as young as four years old sat through the proceeding for only help from workers at the shelter, per data from nonprofit research group the Transactional Records Access clearinghouse. More than 90% of people who appear in New York State immigration courts without legal counsel are eventually ordered deported, in the words of the co managing director of a New York City based nonprofit. The cruelty is really apparent to all of us out here in the field. And that's the news. Before we go, a new episode of Polar Coaster just dropped. Dan is joined by top Democratic pollster Molly Murphy, president of Impact Research. They're diving into the data behind the headlines. Is Trump actually feeling the heat from economic turmoil? Should Democrats be talking about immigration? Don't miss out on this exclusive series, available only to Friends of the podcast. Head to qriket.com friends to join today and for the month of april, enjoy a 30 day free trial to the friends of the Pod community. But hurry, this offer ends soon. That's all for today. If you like the show, make sure you subscribe, leave a review, congratulate your fellow Americans on successfully mass bullying Elon Musk, and tell your friends to listen. And if you're into reading and not just the Tesla Q1 earnings report like me, what a Day is also a nightly newsletter. Check it out and [e-mail] subscribe I'm Erin Ryan and please stop trying to convince me to have more babies. I'm tired.

[Marty Makary]

What a Day is a production of Crooked Media. It's recorded and mixed by Jesmyn Taylor. Our associate producers are Raven Yamamoto and Emily Foer. Our producer is Michelle Aloy. We had production help today from Johanna Case, Joseph Dutra, Greg Walters, and Julia Claire. Our senior producer is Erica Morrison and our executive producer is Adrienne Hill. Our theme music is by Colin Gilliard and Kashaka. Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.

[Robert F. Kennedy Jr.]

Live from the Internet's red carpet, it's Vrbo's 2025 vacation rentals of the Year, our annual showcase of the very best of Vrbo. Selected from over 2 million private vacation rentals, this year's list features breakout hits like a ski in, ski out, mountain chalet and a modern beach compound. With unobstructed ocean views, and with discounts on select stays of one week or longer, these critically acclaimed homes might be more affordable than you'd think. Head over to vrbo.com that's vrbo to check out the official list and make it a vrbox.