Probably didn’t take long. There are an estimated 4.1 million of them alive in America right now. More people than the city of Los Angeles.

Michael was the most popular boys’ name in America for 44 of the last 100 years. At its peak, more than 5% of all male births carried it. One name. One in twenty boys. You couldn’t walk into a classroom, a bar, or an office without finding one.

Jennifer did the same for girls. Then Jessica. Then Emily, 13 years at the top. In every era, one name absorbed a disproportionate share of the country’s imagination and held it.

That world is gone.

In 1925, Mary accounted for 5.6% of all girls born in America. Jennifer peaked at 3.4% in the 1970s. Today Olivia sits at #1 with 0.8%.

Michael once commanded 4.8% of male births. Liam, the current #1, takes about 1.2%.

The top 10 boys’ names once covered 25.6% of all male births.

The top 10 girls’ names covered 21.4%.

Today: 7.4% and 6.5%.

Nearly 30% of American babies now receive names outside the top 1,000.

The playground test is broken. Shout a name across a schoolyard and watch nothing happen. The internet fragmented culture, and naming went with it. A few dominant names became thousands of small ones.

We have never, in recorded American history, been less uniform in what we name our children.

Names used to move through America the way everything did: slowly and together. A handful of TV shows. A shared radio dial. A few national magazines. When a name caught on, it caught on everywhere.

The internet shattered that. Culture now splinters into thousands of overlapping communities, each with its own celebrities, aesthetics, and influences. Naming followed. The statistical center collapsed.

Which makes what happened next the most interesting story in modern American naming data.

In 1990, a name sat at rank #228 with 1,296 births across the entire United States. Recognizable from the Bible. Largely abandoned.

Then something shifted.

By 1995 it had cracked the top 100.

1996, the top 50.

Three years later, the top 25.

2009, the top 10.

And in 2013 it hit #1, dethroning Jacob after 13 straight years on the throne.

The name?

Noah.

I should know. I’m one of them.

All of it during the period of maximum naming fragmentation in American history. While the consensus machine was breaking down around every other name, Noah kept climbing.

It hasn’t stopped.

Since losing the top spot in 2017, Noah has held #2 every single year. Nine straight and counting. In 2024, 20,337 boys were named Noah. Not near the all-time peak. The all-time peak, set seven years after giving up #1.

Read that again. Names decline after they peak. Michael did. Jacob did. Jennifer vanished from the top five entirely. Noah lost the crown and set its own birth record seven years later.

And 2025 is where the fun begins.

While the Social Security Administration says Noah was #2 in America, almost everyone else counting says #1.

New York City returned Noah to the top, reclaiming his throne as the No. 1 boys’ name in America’s largest city and ending Liam’s eight-year reign.

Louisiana crowned Noah #1 for 2025. So did New Mexico. So did Puerto Rico.

BabyCenter already has Noah at #1 nationally, ahead of Liam.

Cross a border and it keeps going:

British Columbia: #1.

Scotland: #1.

Northern Ireland: #1.

New South Wales, Australia: #1.

America (currently) says second place. The world says first.

Meanwhile, the estimated 503,000 living Americans named Noah are almost entirely under 30. Still entering school. Still entering workforces. Still building the social fabric of this country.

If you were hoping the saturation had peaked: it’s only just begun.

By 2030, Noah will be the most common name in entry-level offices, college rosters, and Slack channels. Every HR department in America will have one. Every Little League team. Every warehouse. Every Teams call.

The flood has already hit public life.

Noah Schnapp anchored “Stranger Things.” Noah Centineo became Netflix’s rom-com face. Noah Beck turned a TikTok following into a series-regular role on Fox’s “Baywatch” reboot.

Noah Eagle is the fastest-rising voice in American broadcasting, following his father Ian, one of the most respected in the business: Super Bowl on Nickelodeon, Team USA basketball in Paris, NBC’s primetime college football package. Sports Emmy winner. All before 30.

Noah Lyles is the fastest man on earth. Olympic 100-meter gold at Paris 2024. Eight world titles. Born in 1997. In a sport built entirely on speed, he even beat Speed.

And Noah Kahan, also born in 1997, turned “Stick Season” into a multi-platinum global phenomenon. Two Grammy nominations. Sold out stadiums nationwide. A Netflix documentary.

Noahs sit at the top of film, television, music, broadcasting, and track at the same time. A generation is coming of age, and it answers to one name.

Leave a comment

So what drove it?

Three things, in sequence, over thirty years.

First: television & the Noah that started it all.

“ER” debuted September 19, 1994, and became the second most-watched show in America behind “Seinfeld.” Audiences fell for Noah Wyle’s Dr. Carter, and the name quietly took root with future parents. Thirty-one years later, the OG Noah won his first Emmy for 'The Pitt.' In 1993, Noah ranked #203. By 1996, #50. A 150-rank jump in three years, off one man on one show.

Second: culture.

Noah rode a broader Old Testament wave. Joshua was a top-5 staple from 1983. Jacob hit #1 in 1999 and held it 13 years. Elijah and Isaiah climbed through the 2000s. Evangelical Christianity’s expansion in the ‘80s and ‘90s built a runway for names that felt grounded and ancient, and Noah stood on it with an advantage the others lacked: everyone already knew his story. Noah’s Ark belongs to Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike. No other name in the top 10 carries that range.

Third: Ryan Gosling.

“The Notebook” came out in June 2004, when Noah ranked #29. Two years later: #15. Four thousand additional births. Gosling’s Noah Calhoun was working class, loyal, and quietly strong. He built a house with his hands and wrote 365 letters. He became the measuring stick for what a generation of soon-to-be parents thought a good man looked like.

Underneath all three: the name itself.

Two syllables. Nickname-proof. Works the same in English, Spanish, French, Arabic, and Hebrew. And it refuses to date itself. Michael sounds mid-century. Brandon like the ‘80s. Tyler, the ‘90s. Noah could belong to anyone, born any year, carrying any ambition.

That’s why it’s still here.

A name is a signal. A hope. A quiet vote for the kind of person we want a child to become.

Michael won in an era of certainty, when culture moved as one and a single name could speak for millions. Jennifer peaked at 3.4%, owned a decade, then vanished from the top five. One era, one name, then gone.

Noah has persevered despite the collapse of monoculture. It climbed through a timeline actively working against any single name becoming dominant and landed in the top two for 13-years straight.

The name means rest. Comfort.

It’s earned a third meaning:

Grit.

Nine years at #2 in the official standings. First place in New York, Louisiana, New Mexico, Puerto Rico, Scotland, and probably your local maternity ward.

Half a million of us, almost all under 30, just getting started.

Consider this your warning.

If you don’t No-ah Guy yet...

You will.

1. psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem

2. the act or practice of grossly misleading someone especially for one's own advantage

The 2024 United States Presidential election - aka reality TV on steroids - consistently features high stakes for the American people:

• “The most important election of our lifetimes” - a phrase used to emotionally motivate voters for over 200 years.

• “Democracy is on the ballot” yet again.

• The Republican candidate is labeled as a “fascist”, continuing a tradition that’s been ongoing since 1964.

Emotional drivers, specifically fear, have unfortunately become a leading driver for the Democratic Party. Regardless of the opponent, there’s been a consistent focus over the last 16 years toward pathos-oriented messaging compared to highlighting their candidate’s logistical strengths. Even the Obama campaign, which was primarily centered around hope and change, also strategically included a dose of fear-mongering - that the 2012 Republican Presidential nominee would, “drag America back to a dark past”.

Sound familiar? If the current, “we’re not going back” being run by the Harris campaign rings a bell, it should: it was utilized 14 years ago in 2010 by Obama during the midterms.

Beyond using the same playbook to get voters motivated via what they feel vs what logically makes sense, the modern-day (2020 & 2024) campaigns have resorted to full-blown deception at levels not previously seen.

Here’s an ongoing list of some of the misinformation being pushed:

Project 2025:

Despite the Republican Nominee’s disavowal, noted here, here, and here - there are still ads & stories being run to manipulate voters into thinking that it is something that would be implemented should Harris lose.

This is blatantly false. And they know it. The Vice President herself repeated these falsehoods during the debate last month. The actual policy agenda that would be implemented in the event of a Harris loss would be Agenda 47. Why push something that has been disavowed?

National Abortion Ban:

Abortion, understandably, is one of the most important issues in 2024. The current messaging about what would happen in regards to reproductive freedom, however, should Harris lose, is largely based on the above - Project 2025.

The Republican Nominee has clearly stated that he would not sign a federal abortion ban and then going even further on X (fka Twitter) that he would, “VETO” a national abortion ban. Should abortion be left up to the states and voted upon (as done so already in states such as Kansas, Michigan, and Ohio) - 63% of Americans support it. Why mislead voters on such an important issue?

Bloodbath, Suckers & Losers, and Mischaracterizations Galore:

The Vice President’s campaign has knowingly pushed out of context and even made up quotes to stoke fear and division among voters:

• Micharacterized the use of the word bloodbath by the Former President, claiming that he implied there would be a “bloodbath” if he loses the election. This was checked in real-time as he was referring to the impact of economic policies.

• On multiple accounts - even as recently as during her closing speech in DC - the Vice President has taken an alleged quote (“suckers and losers”) - that has been denied by over 10 individuals including former national security adviser John Bolton - and used it to insinuate disrespect by the Former President towards the military community. The quote in question originated from anonymous sources and was only “confirmed” by one individual.

• During the final week of October 2024, there were misleading articles from Politico, Reuters, The Washington Post, CNN, and even the Vice President herself claiming that the Former President was pushing a violent rhetoric against Liz Cheney. These claims were quickly proven to be misleading and lacking context as the Republican Nominee had simply suggested that those who send Americans to war should imagine what it feels like to be on the front lines themselves.

Very Fine People

One of the longest-running misinformation campaigns against the Former President is that he called neo-Nazis and white supremacists “very fine people” in 2017. This alleged quote was even used as the reason for President Biden to start his campaign.

It took seven years, but even Snopes certified that the claim was false. Despite the claim being debunked and verified as a hoax, the Vice President repeated this blatant lie during the debate last month.

Even Former President Obama, as of November 3, 2024, is also pushing this lie to influence and mislead voters across the country.

A Common Theme

The six examples given above, as well as those not listed, share a common theme amongst them: all are designed to invigorate an emotional response; all are designed to invoke fear - that should Harris lose on Tuesday, America will “go back” to a dark age; should Harris lose, women and members of the LGBTQ+ community won’t have rights that others do. Those examples are not accurate and are designed to scare folks as they head to the ballot box.

These tactics are not rooted in intellectual honesty. They are not rooted in joy. Nor hope. Nor unity. Stoking fear, creating confusion, and sowing this division amongst the populace only works to further divide instead of focusing on the values and common ground many Americans share.

A campaign that is confident in its nominee, its policies, and what it feels it can offer to the American public would not need to resort to blatant falsehoods. It would not need to resort to twisting their opposition’s words. These decisions are unfortunately intentional - because it works.

Running a campaign that is based on division, while accusing the other of doing exactly that (accusation through confession), is the sort of hypocrisy that many are fed up with. Yet, the emotional driver behind these claims, that inflict guilt and uncertainty, have tremendous success. Humans are emotional creatures, that want to feel like they are doing the right thing.

But if one has to lie. To mislead. To manipulate the public to prop up their candidate. Who, is not a product of the democratic process but a coup, as detailed below by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh.

Seymour Hersh

LEAVING LAS VEGAS

In late 1967, as the Vietnam War was raging and President Lyndon B. Johnson was becoming increasingly unpopular, I was recruited to handle the press and write speeches for Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota, the only Democrat gutsy enough to run against the Democratic president…

Read more

2 years ago · 1381 likes · Seymour Hersh

Where Former President Obama and Vice President Harris threatened to utilize the 25th Amendment should President Biden not step aside. Usurping the democratic process and the will of over 14 million voters that participated in the democratic primary process.

One party continues to mischaracterize the January 6 capital protests, claiming that the Former President was attempting to overthrow democracy, lying about the number of deaths attributed to that day. Then in the span of 3.5 years, that same political party actually succeeded in the same allegations.

That is not fighting for democracy. It’s gaslighting at the most basic definition. Even after he was shot by a democratic donor, the Vice President continued to further amplify the violent rhetoric against the Republican Nominee.

The Right is not exempt from spreading misleading claims, such as one of the most memorable moments from the ABC Presidential Debate, “they’re eating the cats, they’re eating the dogs”. A moment that instantly became the top trend on X.com as viewers discussed what they were seeing. This was also not accurate as while there were reports of an Ohio woman eating a cat, this was not a migrant and to impose that sort of fear towards immigrants was unacceptable. Furthermore, while there is a massive illegal immigration problem, the Former President’s framing that migrants have the “highest rate of criminality” is also not accurate as immigrants are 60% less likely to be incarcerated.

This 5th of November

As voters head to the polls this Tuesday, they’re faced with a reminder:

• Do they support a candidate who has directly lied to the American people: about President Biden’s health, about Project 2025, and a potential National Abortion Ban, while usurping the democratic process as they campaign for the most powerful position in the world? On a ticket that features putting a serial liar one heartbeat away from the Oval Office.

• A known felon who has been arrested and has numerous flaws from the way he speaks to the public, the press, and other world leaders to how there will likely be major reform across numerous government platforms.

Fear has become the ultimate tool of this sitting administration. People should not be afraid of their government - not knowing who is in charge as the Commander-in-Chief reads off a teleprompter written by a public relations practitioner.

Governments should be afraid of their people. Citizens that will hold them accountable. That will stand up when enough becomes enough. To reject the lies, manipulation, and inauthenticity as one people, one nation, indivisible, together.

Share

Leave a comment

Subscribe now