Staff Reports
President Donald Trump told TIME he regrets nominating Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett because, he said, “they voted against me too often.” The remark is a rare and raw admission that a president is disappointed by lifetime judges he put on the bench. That one line creates a big headache for conservatives who want a strong, predictable judiciary moving into midterm fights and beyond.
Trump’s TIME interview and the rulings he cited
In the TIME interview, President Trump said, “Yeah. Yeah. What can I do? I put them in. They voted against me too often. I gave them the position of a lifetime, and they vote against me often.” He pointed to three recent rulings that stung him: the court’s rejection of his bid to narrow birthright citizenship, its decision to strike down his emergency‑powers global tariffs, and the refusal to let a Postal Service directive limit mail‑in ballots. Those cases matter. They reshape policy on borders, trade and voting — all central to the president’s agenda.
Fact check: the $400 billion claim and what really happened
President Trump also said the Court could have avoided a massive payout over tariffs “with a little clause” and that it “would have saved $400 billion.” That number comes from him, not from court filings or mainstream budget models. Independent estimates widely cited after the tariff ruling put potential refund exposure closer to the low hundreds of billions — Penn Wharton’s model was one commonly mentioned figure and is substantially lower than $400 billion. Pointing out the gap is not to stick up for the justices; it’s to remind readers that big political claims deserve a reality check.
Why this fight is unusual — and what conservatives should do about it
It’s uncommon for a sitting president to publicly bemoan lifetime nominees. Judges are supposed to be independent. That said, voters who backed President Trump expected judges who would stick to originalism and common sense. If three picks deliver mixed results on key fights, conservatives have a right to demand better vetting and clearer judicial philosophy going forward. And yes, it’s funny to imagine swapping lifetime appointees like campaign staff, but the smarter move is to nominate jurists whose records show the kind of rulings you want.
At the end of the day, the TIME admission forces a choice. Conservatives can cluck and move on, or they can get serious about nominations, statutes that protect core policies, and the courtroom strategy needed to defend them. The midterms and the next round of confirmations are coming into view. If President Trump wants judges who “vote for me” more often, the answer is not whining on camera — it’s better nominees, tighter legal drafting, and a fight plan that wins in court. That’s the sort of loyalty the country should expect from its legal team, not from lifetime justices.
