To the Editor:
Re “President Ousts Top U.S. General as Part of Purge” (front page, Feb. 23):
Let’s be clear about one thing: The actions taken to remove the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., and other leaders at the Pentagon have little to do with what you report as “the president’s insistence that the military’s leadership is too mired in diversity issues.”
This is, instead, the action of a growing dictatorship. Every dictator knows that he or she must have a military that owes its allegiance to the dictator, not to the citizenship or to a country’s constitution. This action is a blatant attempt to destroy the tradition of an independent, apolitical military service in the United States and replace it with a military that will do Caesar’s bidding.
Among all the executive orders, court filings and public furor, I find this action to be possibly the single most dangerous action the administration and its backers have taken. It lays the groundwork for the complete destruction of our Republic. We would be wise to pay careful attention.
Douglas Haskin
Carrollton, Texas
To the Editor:
During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump offered very cold comfort for those who were more than worried about his authoritarian aspirations and admirations when he said he would be a dictator only on “Day 1.”
We are now past the 30-day mark of that Longest Day. Mr. Trump has already compiled a dictatorial list that includes his issuance of a diktat ending birthright citizenship and his continuing violation of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and other statutes grounded in Article I of the Constitution.
Now he has added a new entry with his blatant politicization of the Defense Department through the firing of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., and others in the top leadership of the Pentagon.
Clearly, by breaking through the guardrails of laws and norms that have sustained our democratic Republic, even during the times of its greatest stress, Mr. Trump has demonstrated that his presidency is unsafe at any speed.
Chuck Cutolo
Westbury, N.Y.
Refuse to Obey
It might be more challenging for him to invent scenarios that support his reckless pronouncements and allegiances. He might be forced to acknowledge that the seed of tyranny is not propagated by anyone and everyone who has ever slighted him or refused him praise or profit, but by the self-interest that he so horrifyingly demonstrates. Most disturbingly it has become the coin of other undemocratic realms.
A Ukrainian friend answered a letter of apology and regret: “Everything will be OK in the end. If it’s not OK, it’s not the end.” Maybe.
It is difficult to cite one headline as the impetus for this letter. Every day we are confronted with new instances of President Trump’s impetuous mandates upheld by a Congress gripped by self-interest and cowardice.
We are a population in shock, treading to stay above the chaos that he so ably wields. With so much to protest we can only support those like the U.S. prosecutors Danielle Sassoon and Hagan Scotten, and others, who have refused to obey.
Rebecca Okrent
Wellfleet, Mass.
The Supreme Court’s Dilemma
To the Editor:
Re “Roberts’s Entire Life Has Led to This Moment,” by Jeff Shesol (Opinion guest essay, Feb. 23), about likely coming court cases concerning the Trump administration’s actions:
The Supreme Court stands on the horns of a dilemma. If the court rules against the administration, it risks President Trump’s ignoring its decision and thereby obviates the court’s authority and precipitates a constitutional crisis.
On the other hand, if the Supreme Court fails to uphold the law and the Constitution, it makes a folly of our democracy.
Even if an executive order is patently unlawful, our highly politicized court is unlikely to risk Mr. Trump’s rejection of its rulings. It likely will largely side with the administration, but with an occasional small victory for the rule of law.
Yet another favored strategy of the court is to narrowly rule on a case and send it back to the lower courts for further adjudication, leaving considerable ambiguity in its wake.
Stanley A. Rubin
Santa Monica, Calif.
Children Will Pay
To the Editor:
Re “What the Trump Era Looks Like for Disabled Students in K-12” by Jessica Grose (newsletter, nytimes.com, Feb. 12):
The attacks on the Department of Education by the Trump administration and the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, are consistent with the MAGA movement’s broader assault on government.
But it is made even worse by their toxically simplistic approach to learning and psychology. In their world there is only one kind of learner and only two outcomes: success or failure. The concepts of neurodiversity and learning disability do not fit within their narrow worldview, and neither do the millions of American children who participate in special education.
These children will be among the most vulnerable casualties of a fully implemented MAGA-DOGE agenda.
Joseph Moldover
Wellesley, Mass.
The writer is a developmental neuropsychologist.
A Company’s Profits, and Its Social Responsibility
To the Editor:
Re “D.E.I. Comes and Goes, but Focus on Profit Is Constant, by Jeff Sommer (Strategies column, Sunday Business, Feb. 23):
Mr. Sommer is correct: Milton Friedman allowed that corporations may properly pretend to embrace fashionable social causes if cloaking their actions in that way will increase their profits.
Mr. Sommer might have also noted how Professor Friedman’s principle of shareholder capitalism leads to desirable social ends as well.
Take the example of the sign in most hotel rooms urging guests to reuse towels to help the environment. In all likelihood, those in the C-suite have no particular concern about the environment but are actually focused on reducing laundry expenses to increase the hotel’s profits.
Lo and behold, the company fulfills its sole social responsibility, to maximize profits, and the environment is a winner.
Kenneth A. Margolis
Chappaqua, N.Y.
The writer is a labor and employment lawyer.
Try a Little Tenderness
To the Editor:
Re “Tenderness as an Act of Resistance,” by Margaret Renkl (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, Feb. 10):
Ms. Renkl’s essay just created a calm, a signpost in my heart and mind that will guide me through these horrific years ahead. Today, a fiercely cold wind is ripping down the Columbia River gorge that I can feel through the walls of my humble trailer home. My Shih Tzu Teddy has his ears blown back, while my eyes and nose run.
That reality grounds me. Ms. Renkl’s writings are always grounding, too. I am so grateful.
Laura Burnett
Portland, Ore.
