President Trump called rulings by his three Supreme Court nominees very disappointing after giving them positions of a lifetime, and said Democratic justices at least stick together with loyalty.
In a new New York Post report on his Time magazine interview, Trump said Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh have voted against him too often on major cases. He framed the problem as bad outcomes for the country, not personal scorekeeping.
The flashpoints he named include tariff cases, birthright citizenship, and earlier fights over mail-in voting rules. Trump said he wants sound decisions. He also said he notices how the other side votes as a bloc.
He put the contrast in plain terms.
Trump told Time:
"I put them in. They voted against me too often."
He added that he gave the three “the position of a lifetime,” and that they vote against him often, and for him too. Then he turned to the justices aligned with Democrats.
Trump argued that Democratic-appointed justices move in lockstep in a way his own picks do not. He said he dislikes the pattern on policy, yet still notices the discipline.
Trump said in the interview:
"The Democrats stick like glue, those three, they virtually never vary. You can come up with the worst thing in the world and they’ll vote as a group. And while I don’t like it, there’s something I admire about it: there’s loyalty. So they have loyalty to Barack Hussein Obama."
He went further on President Biden, saying the Democratic-side justices show loyalty “even though Biden doesn’t even know who the h*** they are,” and claiming Biden “doesn’t even know what the Supreme Court is.” He then returned to his own nominees: he gave them “the chance of a lifetime,” and called the results unfortunate.
Trump drew a bright line on what he is asking for.
He said:
"I don’t want loyalty. I want good decisions. The tariff decision was disastrous for the country."
In February, Gorsuch and Barrett voted to invalidate Trump’s new 10% baseline tariff for most countries and a separate levy on China, Mexico and Canada tied to fentanyl smuggling. That outcome left businesses entitled to more than $100 billion in refunds.
Trump said the bench could have limited the damage with narrow wording. He argued the court refused a simple fix.
Trump said:
"All they had to do was a little clause saying any money paid does not have to be paid back...would have saved $400 billion. They chose not to save that."
From a governing standpoint, the stakes are concrete. Tariffs were a tool aimed at trade pressure and fentanyl flows across the border. Invalidating them did not only settle a legal fight. It opened a massive refund line and, in Trump’s account, left hundreds of billions on the table that a short clause might have protected.
Trump also hit the court’s handling of birthright citizenship. Barrett voted with the majority to overturn his executive order seeking to deny citizenship to children of parents who are not citizens or permanent residents. Kavanaugh concurred in part and dissented in part.
Trump cast the decision as a national-cost problem, not a personal slight.
He said:
"It’s unfortunate what they did, not to me, to our country. Birthright citizenship. It’s becoming a major industry now. People are making millions and millions of dollars, and we’re losing trillions of dollars."
He called the resulting system “a corrupt business” tied to the Supreme Court decision. He argued the original constitutional settlement addressed children of slaves, not modern waves of arrivals “pouring into our country,” whether wealthy or not.
That framing tracks a long-running conservative complaint: policy designed for one historical wrong now collides with mass migration incentives, hospital bills, schooling costs, and long-term fiscal burdens on lawful residents and taxpayers.
The Time interview was not Trump’s first public rebuke of the trio. On Sept. 15 he ripped the same three justices on social media after they voted against his proposed rules for mail-in voting. He wrote that “these are not the people I interviewed.”
Election rules sit at the center of public trust. Conservatives who watched 2020 and later cycles have pushed tighter verification, clearer chains of custody, and limits on loose mail-in practices. When Trump’s own nominees blocked his proposed rules, he treated it as a break with the screening he thought he had done before elevating them.
Still, the personal temperature was not only freeze-out. On Sept. 24, at the US-China state dinner, Trump gave away four of just 134 tickets to Barrett, Kavanaugh and their spouses. The public criticism and the seated invitations landed in the same month.
Trump’s core complaint is simple to state. He nominated Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to the highest court in the country. He says he handed them career-defining seats. In return he expected rigorous constitutional judging that would hold up under pressure on borders, trade, and election integrity.
Instead he has watched key votes go the other way on tariffs that carried six- and seven-figure consequences for public accounts, on citizenship rules he says feed a lucrative pipeline, and on mail-in voting standards he wanted tightened. He says Democratic appointees rarely splinter. His own, he says, splinter enough to matter.
He keeps repeating the same standard: not loyalty oaths, not team jerseys, good decisions. The tariff refund wave above $100 billion, his $400 billion clause claim, and his warning about “trillions” tied to birthright policy are how he measures the gap between the seats he filled and the outcomes the country got.
Voters who sent Trump back to office were not hiring a spectator. They wanted enforcement tools, trade leverage, and a citizenship system that does not read like an open invitation. When Supreme Court votes strip those tools or expand the fiscal bleed, the argument in the Time interview drafts itself: lifetime jobs demand lifetime seriousness about the national interest.
Loyalty on the left explains a lot of 5, 4 and 6, 3 theater. Results for the country still matter more, and disappointing votes have a price tag the public can read.
