Today’s young adults, on average, now spend more than a decade navigating the ambiguous space between sexual maturity and marriage. What was once a short transitional chapter has now become an extended, and often confusing act in a person’s life. William Shakespeare captured the drama of human development in these famous lines from “As You Like It,” penned around 1599: All the world’s a stage,  And all the men and women merely players;  They have their exits and their entrances;  And one man in his time plays many parts… Centuries later, the theme still resonates: We all progress through life from infancy and childhood to adulthood and, if we’re lucky, old age. But one act of that lifelong drama — what Shakespeare called the season of the “lover” — has grown significantly longer. A majority of young people today now date for over a decade before saying, “I do.” For most of history, “sexual debut” (or losing one’s virginity) and marriage were either concurrent or chronologically very close. In the 1950s, the window between these events was just a few short years for the average American. Not so today. Sexual debut occurs, on average, at 17.4 years for women and 17.6 years for men, statistics that have held relatively steady over time. But the average age for first marriage is now much later: 28.4 years for women and 30.8 years for men. Often billed as a fun season of life, the pre-marriage single years today are marked by loneliness, confusion, and poor mental health. Shakespeare had it right when he described the lover: Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad  Made to his mistress’ eyebrow. Young adults today are indeed woeful. Gen Z has struggled with feelings of loneliness more than any other generation: their despair and disillusionment are growing. At least some of this disillusionment may find its root in a confusing dating culture. To extend Shakespeare’s metaphor, one might say that we have lost the script for life. Just a few decades ago, young people knew they were expected to look for a spouse, marry, and then start a family and build a future together. Now that’s not so clear. So, what can be done? Do we write a new script? Dig up the old one? In an age where freedom and self-determination are highly valued, any script may seem overly prescriptive. Of course, men and women should be free to make their own choices. No two love stories are the same. And there will always be some people who choose intentional lifelong singlehood. But the absence of norms and expectations appears to create its own problems. The overwhelming majority of today’s young adults still want to get married and have kids. In a new national poll, fully 80.5% of respondents (aged 18-29) were either married (18.5%) or said they hoped to get married one day (62%), and 70% said they either had kids already (24.5%) or hoped to have them (45.4%). Will they achieve these dreams? We may not be able to replace the old script for family formation, but we can help the young adults — the lovers — who are stuck on stage, calling for a line. Changing our culture is hard, but possible. For starters, we can be more honest about what choices and behaviors make people happiest. More time spent single before marriage means more opportunity to gain pre-marriage sexual experience, but this isn’t a good thing. Our culture tells young adults that pornography, casual sex, and cohabitation are no big deal. Social science, however, suggests otherwise. These choices are associated with worse health, worse mental health, and lower marriage satisfaction. Sexual inexperience is actually linked to stronger, happier marriages. Pornography poses particular problems for Gen Z. We’re not talking about your dad’s Playboy magazine anymore; we’re talking about a lethal cocktail of social media, artificial intelligence, and ubiquitous internet connection. And it’s not just the guys: Young women are increasingly reading and listening to erotic literature. A solo sex life is a cheap but easy replacement for relationships with real-life human beings. After all, fellow humans come with smelly socks, emotional baggage, and for many in Gen Z, divergent political views. The widening political divide between young women and men both reflects — and reinforces — today’s strained dating culture. Time spent online only deepens political animosity. And yet, young, single people are very online, sometimes using the internet to look for love. Technology has made connections easier, but relationships harder. Many married couples first met on dating apps. But online dating offers a literal world of possibilities when it comes to potential “matches.” Youth of yesteryear were often constrained to high school sweethearts or college coed counterparts. This “paradox of choice” that overwhelms today’s dating men and women also undermines their satisfaction even after they commit to one another. The influence of technology on relationships goes even deeper: Young people today are spending a lot of time on social media and video games, and less time on in-person social interactions, where real-life relationship skills develop. The COVID pandemic accelerated this trend, but it was underway before (and continues after). Underdeveloped social skills are likely contributing to “approach anxiety” in today’s young men, who say they don’t want to come off as “creepy” when asking a girl out in real life. The #MeToo movement has also played a factor. While the effort to raise awareness about sexual misconduct has had some positive effects, it chilled many male-female interactions. Most (54.3%) young adults agree that #MeToo has made men fearful of false accusations and, therefore, less interested in dating. Gen Z still expects the man to make the first move, but mixed messages on masculinity are contributing to men’s anxiety in approaching women. Many young people of both sexes are anxious about parenthood. Among young adults who say they don’t want kids, the most commonly-cited reason is, “I don’t think I’ll be a good parent,” outranking cost, career impact, and societal concerns. In the 18-24 age range, nearly one in three (32.3%) respondents who didn’t want kids cited this as their primary reason. This points to something cultural — not economic or policy-oriented — about parenthood hesitancy. Perhaps our social expectations of parents have gotten unrealistically high. Perhaps our cultural messages on what makes a “good parent” or even a “good life” have become less clear. Whatever it is that has deteriorated the confidence of young adults, it won’t be easily fixed by a new government program or subsidy. More and more pundits and institutions are joining the bandwagon for a big-government pro-family agenda, but this is ill-advised. Decisions about family formation aren’t like other consumer decisions that are more easily influenced by government intervention. They relate deeply to our conceptions of identity, morality, and meaning. They can totally change the direction of our life’s story. “All the world’s a stage” comes from the play “As You Like It” and like most Shakespearean comedies, the final scene is — you guessed it — a wedding. Young adults today can still find their happy ending, too. But they would benefit from a culture that puts less emphasis on shallow, short-term satisfaction and more emphasis on becoming people who can build a future. * * * Hadley Heath Manning is a senior fellow with Independent Women and author of the new report “The Dating Decade: Hooking Up, Hanging Out, and Swiping Right.” The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

You’re not ready to become a mother. I wasn’t “ready” when I became one at 29. I definitely wasn’t ready to be married at 22, either. Happily, I did it all anyway. And then I watched as I steadily grew into these roles, finding my footing with a little grace, a lot of missteps, and more joy than I would’ve ever expected. For this, I’m probably an anomaly — and definitely not a good feminist, according to The New York Times, which on Friday published its latest article about the precipitous decline in the U.S. birthrate. The framing was predictable: this is a good thing, insisted the gaggle of childless twenty-something women interviewed for the piece, because it means women are finally waiting until they’re “ready” to have children. The most obvious first rebuttal to this argument are the statistics on marriage, motherhood, and happiness. According to the Institute for Family Studies (IFS), the happiest young women in America are married moms, and it’s not close. And the longer women wait to marry and have children, the less likely they’ll be able to reach those milestones — socially and biologically. Recent IFS research indicates that women’s odds of having children fall dramatically after they turn 30. But the deeper issue with framing the debate over falling birthrates as a feminist win is the suggestion that anyone is ever “ready” to become a mother. By today’s cultural standard — what Brad Wilcox has called the “Midas Mindset” — the term “ready” usually has capitalist connotations. It’s defined by having a certain income, reaching a certain level of professional success, or having racked up enough life experiences, like traveling and dating around before settling down. Indeed, the women interviewed by the Times — the young marketing student who regrets having to care for her siblings while her mom hustled to make ends meet; the recent grad who wants to build her career first; and the gym employee who “enjoys the [childless] peace” with her husband — are all under the impression that being ready for kids is primarily a logistical and financial proposition. But if this standard were real, we should expect there to come a moment in most women’s lives when they’ve reached some or all of these benchmarks, prompting them to wake up and suddenly find they’re ready to become mothers. But that’s not what’s happening. Because that’s not how any of this works. The women featured in the Times seem to believe that becoming a mother is something they can accurately imagine ahead of time. They believe it’s an endeavor that will someday fit into pictures of their lives they’ve already painted. The problem is that motherhood doesn’t lend itself to that kind of logic. There is no analog to having children by which women (or men, for that matter) can ever really make an informed decision not to do it. That would be like saying, “I’ve looked at this from every possible angle, and I’ve decided not to live on Mars.” To say such a thing would be to have no actual idea what we’re choosing or not choosing. What many of the women interviewed by the Times don’t seem to understand is that to become a mom is to fundamentally change. A woman in her early twenties can look at the prospect of motherhood as if it were simply another life choice. She might think “maybe I’ll move to another city,” or “maybe I’ll break up with my boyfriend,” and she can pretty fairly imagine what those experiences would be like, because she’d still be herself when or if they happened. But to contemplate motherhood as the same sort of question is a category error. Because when she becomes a mom, she will change so fundamentally that she, frankly, has no business making decisions today on behalf of that stranger. That probably explains why childless women who try to defend their decision tend to overestimate the hard parts of motherhood and wildly underestimate the wonderful parts. Rose Paz, a young college student who spoke to the Times, said she doesn’t want to have kids right now because it would be a financial struggle, and she remembers the painful experience of watching her own parents stress out over money. I can empathize with that fear, and it’s true that below poverty, motherhood can be a daily crisis. But if Ms. Paz is imagining some future point in her life in which she won’t feel stressed about money — that is, I’m sorry to say, a fundamental misunderstanding of both stress and money. Life just doesn’t work that way, and motherhood has nothing to do with it. Another woman, a social demographer, told the Times that the falling birthrate is a “success story” because women are finally making sure they have their “lives in order” before having kids. “We spent decades shaming women for having kids under the wrong circumstances, for not having their ducks in a row… now they are holding up their end of the bargain,” she said. Certainly, no woman should ever be shamed for having a child; much less a woman whose deadbeat partner has chosen to abandon her to single motherhood. But the social stigma on teen and single motherhood was never really about women having kids when they were poor; it was about women having kids when they weren’t married. These supposedly empowered women claiming to have taken back control of their own lives aren’t talking about making sure a man commits to them before having babies; they’re talking about making enough money. Again, that’s not the right perspective. The happiest women in America are married moms. Past a certain level of basic material security, the hardships of parenthood aren’t really mitigated by more money, because they’re much deeper and much more existential than the merely financial. They are mitigated by marriage, though. And that’s because, just as it takes a man and a woman to make a baby, it also takes a man and a woman to raise a baby. It turns out, the best parts of marriage and motherhood have nothing to do with money, either. In my experience, they are surprising and unscripted. The best parts are finding your babies in bed, reading under the covers with a flashlight. It’s when they say “ex-shepally” when they mean “especially.” It’s watching their hair grow wild and curly. It’s catching them being kind to a young stranger. It’s seeing yourself care more about them than your own comfort, when you hadn’t really known that was possible. I’m almost 40 now, with two young daughters and a marriage going on 17 years. I can’t imagine a deeper source of both vulnerability and joy than this family of mine. I can reasonably imagine what life would have been like if I hadn’t gotten married young. I remember what it was like to travel alone, to answer to no one but myself, to sleep in on Saturdays, and to pee in solitude. Women who haven’t married or had children, however, don’t have the same insight into their own what-ifs. They may really believe that not having children during their healthiest childbearing years is the path toward their deepest happiness. But they don’t know it, and they’re almost certainly wrong. From a Christian perspective, I believe this is why God made childbearing something totally outside our control. The hard things in life are usually the very best things, but most of us don’t have the strength, on our own, to choose the hard things. Young women should get married and have babies anyway. They’ll see — I mean this literally — exactly what I mean. Maria Baer is a contributing writer at the Institute for Family Studies and co-host of the Breakpoint podcast with The Colson Center for Christian Worldview. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

What makes America great? Some attribute American greatness to the brilliant system of government inaugurated two and a half centuries ago. The first groups that came to this continent were Christians, and so were most of the Founding Fathers. Fifty-three out of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were Christians who believed that “God who gave us life gave us liberty” and endowed us “with certain unalienable rights” as Thomas Jefferson so eloquently stated. They developed a political and economic system that reflected this Judeo-Christian belief. For the first time in human history, there existed a nation where freedom not only guaranteed the rights of citizens but also ensured the smooth operation of a market economy. Individuals, regardless of their origin or social status, could attain the American Dream by applying themselves in exercising their God-given talents to the fullest extent. Thus, our political and economic structures helped build this great nation. Rightly so. As someone who grew up in China, I, however, have another perspective. America is great because for many decades her immigrants came from a similar cultural background that bore a heavy Christian influence. For two centuries, the majority of immigrants came from Western countries whose civilization was based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. In this new environment where they shared the same traditions, they didn’t experience severe cultural clashes. In fact, American freedom enhanced and protected the Christian values that had already been observed in their mother countries. Consequently, most of the immigrants naturally embraced the culture of their new country. The fusion of freedom and Christianity has produced — in addition to unprecedented prosperity — citizens who feared God, were honest, compassionate, hardworking, independent, and law-abiding. Together, they made America great. The Rise Of Multiculturalism However, America’s immigration policy underwent a significant shift in the 1960s. On October 3, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Hart-Celler Act, abolishing the “country-of-origin” quota system, which favored immigrants from Western countries. This change was most likely influenced by the civil rights movement, aiming at eliminating the perceived discriminatory practice in immigration. In subsequent decades, it led to an increase in immigration from outside the West, drastically altering immigration patterns and the demographic makeup of the United States. Ultimately, it contributed to the rise of multiculturalism. President Lyndon B. Johnson signs the Immigration Bill of 1965 on Liberty Island in New York Harbor. (Photo by © CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images) Those on the Left believe that there is no good or bad culture. Every culture is equal. I strongly disagree. They mistake the concept of the individual with the notion of culture. While individuals who are made in the image of God have innate value and rights regardless of which culture they are from, culture, on the other hand, is a complex system of learned behavioral patterns deriving from outside influences. Not all behavioral patterns are the same, and some clearly should be condemned and rejected, as the various wicked nations surrounding Israel described in the Hebrew Scripture. In addition, culture is a powerful force that dictates and controls individuals’ thoughts and behavioral patterns; even those who strive to go against the flow often feel compelled to comply with the socially endorsed behaviors. If culture had not had such a strong pull, then God would not have commanded the Israelites to painstakingly separate themselves from the surrounding nations. For nearly two millennia, since the death and resurrection of Christ, Western civilization has implemented a new set of behaviors and social expectations centered on the gospel message. This Western shift toward Christianity radically diverged from other non-Western cultures. It was on this Christian foundation that America was established. Coming To America When I first arrived in America, I could tell immediately that American culture differed fundamentally from that of China. I noticed how free Americans were; even young children could candidly express their thoughts without worrying about being silenced by adults. I also noticed how Americans, by and large, demonstrated a strong sense of law and order and right from wrong. In contrast, in the province where I grew up, the concept of individual value and rights was totally absent. No one could exist apart from a group. Thus, who you knew was more important than who you were. The intricate interpersonal social structure and the lack of individual rights made it impossible to execute law and order successfully. Practicality often preempted rules and morality. Kevin Frayer/Getty Images Corruption has been a common practice throughout Chinese history. It’s ironic, though, that quite a number of individuals in Chinese history have stood up against the dominant culture, championing integrity and honesty. They were hailed and are still remembered as heroes and role models for the Chinese people to emulate. Nonetheless, it takes culture to transform beliefs into behaviors. That is why being upright and incorruptible has never become part of Chinese culture, only a quality to be admired. The impact of those role models, thus, remains minimal. By no means do I suggest that every aspect of American culture — and by extension Western culture — is preferred and that all features outside of Western civilization are questionable. However, from the perspective of cultural expectations — the shared beliefs about how people should behave in society — the difference between the two groups remains unbridgeable. For instance, take corruption. Though not all Americans are honest, and corruption does occur among American citizens and politicians, it is widely condemned by society and has not become a cultural phenomenon. In contrast, in many non-Western countries, bribery, fraud, and dishonest dealings are often given tacit consent, even by those who despise such practices. This is why the Chinese government’s repeated attempts to crack down on corruption are more of a show than a sincere effort. It is ultimately unattainable. Under no circumstances do I disapprove of immigrants from outside the Western world. I am one of them. What I oppose is the notion of multiculturalism, which differs from the concept of multiethnic societies. Multiculturalism Vs. Multiethnic Societies A multiethnic society comprises people from different cultural backgrounds who are united by a set of essential beliefs, analogous to conservative Christian denominations that share the orthodox Christian core doctrines and moral principles, while still able to retain non-essential elements in their practices. Multiculturalism, on the other hand, is an attempt to form a co-existence of different cultures that do not share a basic conviction and whose ideologies are irreconcilable, comparable to a church encompassing Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists. The ideological incompatibility will eventually result in the dominance of one group with the extinction of the other two. Is a multiethnic society achievable in America? My own experience says, yes. Most immigrants from a non-Western country do not ponder and analyze their own cultures before immigrating to America. They will, however, perceive the cultural differences once arriving in the United States. In a way, America’s freedom and Christian values — the core of American culture — function as a mirror, reflecting the condition of an immigrant’s own culture. Those immigrants who truly love America and treasure what she stands for would be inclined to assimilate into the American culture, relinquishing the elements in their culture that are contrary to the core beliefs of America. They would want to live in conformity with the features that have made America great — freedom, individual rights, personal responsibility, self-reliance, honesty, compassion and other Christian principles. The prerequisite of a multiethnic society is assimilation. I RYU/VCG via Getty Images My own assimilation experience has not reduced my ethnic identity. Rather, it has in some way enhanced it. Take the concept of The Middle Way, for instance. It’s a prominent Chinese philosophical concept that advocates making compromises so as to find the more effective, appropriate, and harmonious path in a given situation. In a free society where excess tends to be the norm, an active pursuit of equilibrium through balance is especially practical. For me, the benefit of The Middle Way was more acutely felt after I immigrated to the United States. Indeed, while living in America, I have been able to practice many of the positive features of Chinese culture. Even so, I am keenly aware that I am an American now and must abide by her fundamental beliefs. While I can still speak Chinese, enjoy Chinese food, and celebrate Chinese New Year, I must treasure freedom and be ready to fight to preserve it. While I can still visit the country of my origin, I must give America my first allegiance and live as the host and owner of the country, not as a guest. I must also be attentive to the events in society, knowing my constitutional rights and striving to contribute to her greatness, instead of taking advantage of her magnanimity. Unfortunately, not every immigrant from outside the Western world shares my conviction. Leftist Multiculturalism Courts Disaster What Nick Shirley exposed about the Somali fraud in Minnesota may shock us, but it should not be a surprise. Aside from the green light given by the Democrat run state government, our immigration policy that encourages and enables mass immigration from a non-Western culture should also bear responsibility. This practice, in accordance with the multiculturalism of the Left, courts disaster by allowing immigrants — whose ideology is worlds apart from ours, and who love neither America nor what she stands for — bind together as a group, and thus permitting them to live as Somalians on American soil and openly and shamelessly steal American taxpayers’ money. Perhaps for them, America feels like heaven, whose welfare system has offered them such an auspicious opportunity to do what their culture is inclined to. It would have been a genuine shock if they had not stolen so much already. Leila Navidi/The Minnesota Star Tribune via Getty Images Multiculturalism — people of different races, religions, and traditions living together — is a mirage, looking attractive only from a distance. No nation can afford multiculturalism, for diverse religions and traditions can never co-exist. One will eventually dominate the others. If we allow the idea of multiculturalism to progress, America soon will repeat the fate of Turkey and Egypt, which once were major Christian centers but were tragically replaced by Islam. Alexis de Tocqueville once said, “America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” America is good because her culture — centered around Judeo-Christian values and freedom — is good. Multiculturalism poses an existential threat to our culture. In contrast, a multiethnic approach protects the integrity of American culture by welcoming immigrants from diverse backgrounds, Western or not, but demanding assimilation. * * * Chenyuan Snider was raised in Communist China and majored in Chinese language and literature in college. After immigrating to the United States and studying at Assemblies of God Theological Seminary and Duke Divinity School, she became a professor at Christian colleges and seminaries. She and her husband live in Northern California and have two grown children. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

The Pentagon is severing ties with a major AI developer after a standoff over military access to artificial intelligence tools, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced Friday, designating Anthropic a “Supply-Chain Risk to National Security.” In a lengthy X post, Hegseth stated in part: “Our position has never wavered and will never waver: the Department of War must have full, unrestricted access to Anthropic’s models for every LAWFUL purpose in defense of the Republic.” Hegseth said Anthropic and CEO Dario Amodei chose “duplicity,” accusing them of trying to “strong-arm the United States military into submission – a cowardly act of corporate virtue-signaling that places Silicon Valley ideology above American lives.” “Their true objective is unmistakable: to seize veto power over the operational decisions of the United States military,” the secretary said. “That is unacceptable.” The War Secretary added that “Anthropic’s stance is fundamentally incompatible with American principles,” and announced that, as a result of the company’s refusal to accede to the Pentagon’s demands, it would be designated a “supply-chain risk.” “Effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic,” Hegseth stated, adding that the Pentagon and Anthropic will untangle their relationship over the next six months while the federal government transitions to a new AI partner. Hegseth’s announcement follows President Donald Trump’s statement earlier Friday, in which the president ordered “EVERY Federal Agency in the United States Government to IMMEDIATELY CEASE all use of Anthropic’s technology.” Trump called Anthropic a “radical Left, woke company” whose “selfishness is putting AMERICAN LIVES at risk, our Troops in danger, and our National Security in JEOPARDY.” In January, the Department of War released a document outlining its strategies for AI dominance, which included the following statement: “The Department must also utilize models free from usage policy constraints that may limit lawful military applications.” Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei released a statement of his own on Thursday as the negotiations were ongoing, stating that while he believes in utilizing artificial intelligence to defend the United States and push back against autocracies, in certain cases, AI could be used in opposition to such goals. Those cases, according to Amodei, are “mass domestic surveillance” and “fully autonomous weapons.” “AI-driven mass surveillance presents serious, novel risks to our fundamental liberties. … For example, under current law, the government can purchase detailed records of Americans’ movements, web browsing, and associations from public sources without obtaining a warrant, a practice the Intelligence Community has acknowledged raises privacy concerns and that has generated bipartisan opposition in Congress. Powerful AI makes it possible to assemble this scattered, individually innocuous data into a comprehensive picture of any person’s life—automatically and at massive scale,” Amodei said. As to fully autonomous weapons, the CEO acknowledged that such weapons may one day “prove critical,” but with current AI technology, “systems are simply not reliable enough to power fully autonomous weapons.” The clash marks a dramatic rupture between the U.S. military and one of Silicon Valley’s most prominent AI firms, escalating a broader battle over who controls the future use of artificial intelligence in national defense.

President Donald Trump said Senator Ted Cruz could be Supreme Court nominee in the near future, praising the Texas Republican during a speech in Corpus Christi on Friday evening. Trump, who was once a fierce critic of Cruz, called the senator “an amazing guy” who is “so good and so talented.” “I’m thinking about putting him in the Supreme Court,” Trump said. “I’m thinking because it’s very hard, getting these nominations through is tough.” The president added that Cruz would receive “100%” of the Democratic and Republican vote, arguing that Cruz’s foes would “want to get him out of [the Senate]. He is such a pain in the ass.” Trump also floated the idea of a Cruz Supreme Court appointment during a speech last month, calling the senator a “brilliant legal mind.” Cruz, however, shot the proposal down in January. “My answer’s not just no, it’s hell no,” he said. “It is interesting in the first Trump term, the president talked to me about all three Supreme Court vacancies, and we had very serious conversations and I told him no all three times.” Cruz added that he wants to be “right in the middle” of political battles, something the Republican said a “principled federal judge” would stay out of. After completing law school, Cruz clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist at the Supreme Court from 1996 to 1997. Trump first discussed the idea of nominating Cruz to the Supreme Court with the senator privately after the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, according to Cruz. “I wrestled with it because I knew Justice Scalia and revered him,” Cruz added. “And to have the opportunity to succeed him, I mean, talk about taking your breath away.” While none of the Supreme Court justices have announced plans to retire anytime soon, there has been talk of either Samuel Alito or Clarence Thomas, the two oldest and most conservative justices, retiring within the next couple of years to give Trump a chance to replace either of them with another conservative. Thomas is 77-years-old and Alito is 75. Alito is set to release a book in early October, which has sparked rumors that the conservative justice could be hanging up his robe before the beginning of the Supreme Court’s next term, which also begins in October. Alito has served on the court for 20 years, while Thomas is the longest-tenured justice, nearing his 35th year on the high court. When asked about Thomas or Alito potentially retiring in the near future, Trump told POLITICO in December that he wants both of them to stay on the court. “Both of those men are fantastic,” he said. After Republicans successfully prevented former President Barack Obama from tapping Merrick Garland as Scalia’s replacement — thanks to the efforts of then-Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell — Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch in 2017. Trump went on to nominate two more justices, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, during his first term. Conservatives now have a 6-3 majority, but Trump has recently been frustrated with conservative justices, including Gorsuch, Coney Barrett, and Chief Justice John Roberts.