To the Editor:
Re “Shattering the Bounds of the Oval Office,” by Peter Baker (news analysis, front page, Jan. 26):
No one should be surprised by President Trump’s norm-busting actions, because he repeatedly indicated during the campaign that he had contempt for democracy and the rule of law. He has said he believes that a president could do anything and not be held accountable.
Mr. Trump has a pliable Republican Party, while the Democratic Party is dazed and confused after the losses sustained in the election. The only check on him will be the courts, and it remains to be seen if he will adhere to court rulings.
The U.S. is in uncharted territory, with democracy in peril. But no one can say they did not know what Mr. Trump would do. Unfortunately, many people did not take him at his word.
Steven E. Cerier
Queens
To the Editor:
Is it Pollyannaish to believe that MAGA world has begun to implode? It’s not just that the egos and billionaires surrounding President Trump are clashing. It seems that President Trump and his idealistically rabid sycophants have perhaps gone too far too fast.
A Reagan-appointed judge, within days of its issuance, put on hold Mr. Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship. Two members of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority have indicated that they realize that Mr. Trump cannot go unchecked after all, in rejecting his request to be spared sentencing.
Polling shows that a majority of Americans didn’t want violent Jan. 6 offenders pardoned. Apparently, only the most radical of Mr. Trump’s base support the idea that criminals who attack law enforcement with flagpoles and bear spray should be set free.
And some of the sheep in Mr. Trump’s flock may start to realize that they are being sheared. Medicare recipients will not like it when they understand that some of Joe Biden’s pharmacy benefit initiatives are being rescinded.
Every day there is a new reason for some who voted for Mr. Trump to start to wonder about his plans. Is it enough? Not yet. But at some point, as people see their rights, freedoms and wallets affected, maybe it will be. We can hope.
Stephen F. Gladstone
Shaker Heights, Ohio
To the Editor:
Your online headline reads: “‘People Will Be Shocked’: Trump Tests the Boundaries of the Presidency.”
The only thing that shocks me is that people are shocked by President Trump’s actions. Mr. Trump told us what he would do. There was a document, Project 2025, that provided an outline of how he could do it. Many of the authors and contributors to that document were part of his campaign and inner circle of advisers.
Yet here we are claiming to be shocked.
You know who’s not shocked? The Republican Party, which had the chance to put this power-hungry, ethics-deficient egomaniac out of politics forever, but opted for more anti-democratic Trumpism.
Until Republicans admit what they’ve done, and stop feigning shock, we’re going to continue to get more of this behavior. I hope Republicans come around before it’s too late.
Andrew Babij
Livingston, N.J.
To the Editor:
Re “Trump Pushes for Radical Changes Across the Policy Spectrum” (news article, Jan. 27):
Tearing families apart through mass deportations. Declaring that being born on U.S. soil no longer makes you a citizen, no matter what the 14th Amendment says. Allowing ICE to raid churches, schools and hospitals. Making it easier for the Trump administration to fire federal workers who don’t toe the line. Abandoning efforts to address climate change, and instead ramping up fossil fuel production (while fires rage in California and snow falls in Florida). Declaring that male and female genders are “immutable” — implying that transgender people must be delusional. Stopping military aid to Ukraine, so that Vladimir Putin can finally swallow his neighbor.
I strongly doubt that most Americans want any of this. And the unpopularity of these policies may be the strongest weapon that Democrats have. So let’s see polling on each of these issues. And then let’s see the results loudly publicized.
No clearsighted American believes that Donald Trump has a mandate to take his wrecking ball to law, custom and common decency. It would be useful to prove that point with numbers. It might even help a handful of Republican legislators recover some of the backbone they’ve checked at the door.
Michael Laser
Montclair, N.J.
To the Editor:
A week into Donald Trump’s second term, we’ve witnessed a rapid onslaught, a blitzkrieg if you will, of executive orders, proclamations and mandates, including the firing of at least a dozen inspectors general. Some will say that this type of policy change is routine — that there is always a torrent of executive orders and personnel changes when a new administration of the opposite party comes to power.
While there is some truth to this, the magnitude and rapidity of Mr. Trump’s policy changes have created the sensation of a seismic shift across the nation, evoking fear in many.
Migrants, Capitol Hill police officers, transgender individuals and federal government workers, both past and present, may currently be in the front lines bearing the brunt of this onslaught, but those of us in the trenches will also feel the impact of this blitz in the weeks, months and years to come.
Reversing efforts to combat climate change, raising tariffs on trading partners and withdrawing from the World Health Organization are just a sampling of Trump policies that will have far-reaching negative impacts not only on all Americans, regardless of political affiliation, but also globally.
Carolyn Faggioni
Bellmore, N.Y.
The Unresponsive Patient
To the Editor:
Re “Unresponsive Doesn’t Always Mean Unconscious,” by Daniela J. Lamas (Opinion guest essay, Jan. 12):
Dr. Lamas’s article reminded me of what I had been taught (in 1964!) as a student nurse at the Johns Hopkins Hospital: Never assume that a patient is not “in there.”
We were trained to think — no matter what evidence existed to the contrary — that an unresponsive patient could hear everything we said and that we must speak to them and explain what we were doing, talking as if they could hear and understand.
Sarah A. Stephens
Donegal, Ireland
To the Editor:
I am troubled knowing I could end up being an unresponsive patient “still in there,” but unlikely to ever regain my ability to be functional.
I am concerned I might have to be cared for indefinitely because I am still in there. Do not do that to me. I do not want to listen to endless television chatter to which I cannot respond other than a squiggly brain wave that indicates my presence.
I suppose I will have to include in my advance directives that if I’m still in there but unlikely to become a functional being, turn off the television and cease life support so that I might rest without being burdensome.
Dave Nadzam
Mentor, Ohio
A Community of Centenarians
To the Editor:
Re “Sorry, No Secret to Life Is Going to Make You Live to 110,” by Saul Newman (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, Jan. 20):
I live in a continuing care community of about 1,650 residents, and last year we celebrated 40 residents who were centenarians!
At 90, I belong to a woman’s group of 10 members, and six of the 10 range in age from 90 to 98. We are ordinary folks, but between sociability and having sufficient financial and medical support, we seem to be superagers without even trying.
Suzanne Hawes
Pompton Plains, N.J.
