Letters to the Editor | June 25, 2025

Consider putting the proverbial shoe on the other foot. If military aircraft from another country flew into U.S. airspace and dropped bombs on three separate military installations, would we consider it an act of war? (If you’re having a tough time with this, consider Dec. 7, 1941.) Then, think back to what we learned in school about the Constitution and who has the authority to commit/declare acts of war. (If you have a tough time with this one, remember back to FDR addressing Congress about a “date which will live in infamy” and asking them to declare a state of war.)

Then ask yourself, or, better yet, ask your elected representative, why have they been so negligent in their duties as to let one man bring us to the brink of war? And after thinking about how you’d be feeling if this had happened on U.S. soil, try to imagine how the people of Iran might be feeling and/or responding. And, lastly, realize that the Constitution exists for a reason. And both those who usurp its authority and those who allow that to happen are unfit to serve and are endangering the lives of us all.

Roger Lopata, Narberth

As a Jew, I appreciate the resolution by Sens. John Fetterman and Dave McCormick decrying violence against Jewish people and institutions. It’s true that Jews have been the subject of sharply increasing attacks in the U.S. and beyond in recent years. This leads me to two reflections. First, actions and policies of the Netanyahu government, some of which can be considered crimes against humanity, and which are in direct contradiction of what the State of Israel is supposed to be, foment hatred against Israel, and by extension, Jews everywhere. Second, there is also hatred and violence against many other groups. Even though Jews have been targets for attack for millennia, one of Judaism’s key values is that human beings are created in God’s image, so all people deserve safety. By singling out one group, this resolution does Jews no service, since it elicits resentment and neglects equally pressing situations where other groups are unfairly attacked.

Sandra Choukroun, Penn Valley

During his first term, Donald Trump declined the invitation to speak at the NAACP convention. Now, when the NAACP will not invite him to the 2025 convention due to his noxious behavior, Trump suffered a narcissistic injury. Predictably, spokesperson Harrison Fields attacked the NAACP for advancing hate and division while Trump is focusing on uniting the country and establishing peace across the globe, a bizarro world claim.

Trump’s saber-rattling over the Israel-Iran conflict is doing no more to promote peace there than he did in Palestine. He gave a green light to Vladimir Putin to continue his carnage in Ukraine. He has threatened military intervention in Greenland and Panama. He called out the National Guard against a fictitious rebellion in Los Angeles, stoking fear and unrest across the country. He is undermining the First Amendment. His policies and daily broadsides increase the country’s disunity. The NAACP’s mission is to achieve equality, expand civil and human rights, eliminate discrimination, and improve the well-being of all persons of color. Inviting a president who has repeatedly failed to attend the convention, and whose beliefs run counter to the NAACP’s goals, would do nothing to advance its mission. Disregarding Trump was an appropriate action.

Stewart Speck, Ardmore, [email protected]

I’m tired of hearing Donald Trump’s allies spreading fantasies that he has an elected mandate. So says his press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, who, along with White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, tries to spread Trump fantasy dust. The numbers say something else. There were 161 million registered voters, and 90 million didn’t vote. Of those voting, Kamala Harris got 48.3% and Trump got 49.8% — not even 50%. Where is the mandate? The only thing voters made clear during the last election is that they thought both parties’ candidates stunk. Trump and his hacks have to stop lying.

Joe Murphy, Ewing

As a recently retired professor, I am writing about the House proposal to eliminate federal energy tax credits. These modest incentives created unexpected benefits that unlocked long-term energy savings for my family. When we moved into our new home in 2022, several windows had peeling lead paint and damage that let rain pool on the sills. After failed rehabilitation attempts, we replaced them in phases. The 25C tax credit helped offset costs, saving us $1,800 in taxes over three years. What surprised us was the dramatic energy savings we hadn’t anticipated. Our monthly bills dropped 40%, from $200 to $120, in the winter months. We installed one room first and immediately noticed more stable heat distribution.

These tax credits embody conservative principles by rewarding personal investment in home improvements that create lasting value. They helped us act faster on necessary upgrades, revealing benefits we wouldn’t have discovered for years without that financial incentive. The cascading effects matter. Each energy-efficient upgrade teaches homeowners about additional savings opportunities, creating a positive cycle of improvement and independence from volatile energy costs. I urge Sen. Dave McCormick to defend these practical incentives that help Pennsylvania families discover the unexpected benefits of energy efficiency.

Cindy Maguire, Merion Station

The Inquirer’s coverage of the consequences of Harrisburg not allocating more funds for SEPTA has been exemplary. The extensive reporting described in detail the harm to suburban commuters, city residents, college and public school students, as well as the impact on cities and towns across the state, and even climate change, all caused by underfunding mass transit. I wish I could say thank you to The Inquirer for championing this worthy cause, but my appreciation for this job well done vanished after reading the Editorial Board’s embrace of state Senate leader Kim Ward’s false narrative that pits the funding for mass transit against education investments.

If only the same attention to detail paid to the complexity of transit funding had been applied to the funding of education, the Editorial Board could have used the commentary as an opportunity to dispel the myth that proposed cyber school reforms will generate ample funds for public schools. Simply put, Philadelphia schools are currently owed $1.2 billion by the state, and cyber school reforms, while needed, will not be sufficient to address the debt due to Philly students. The fact is that payments to cyber schools amount to approximately $200 million of the school district’s budget. None of the proposals in Harrisburg would chip away at even 25% of these costs. The citizens of Pennsylvania and Philadelphia should not have to choose between reasonable funds for transit and schools. Great states and great cities have both, and a great newspaper should make that point loud and clear.

Donna Cooper, executive director, Children First

Join the conversation: Send letters to [email protected]. Limit length to 200 words and include home address and day and evening phone number. Letters run in The Inquirer six days a week on the editorial pages and online.