To the Editor:
Re “Trump’s Strength Is His Greatest Weakness,” by David Brooks (column, April 25):
Mr. Brooks is overthinking again. In his column, he praises President Trump’s energy, and implicitly compares him to the military grand strategists Sun Tzu and Carl von Clausewitz.
A more apt comparison for Mr. Trump’s behavior in his first 100 days as president this term would be with players of violent video games, in which the challenge is simply to slaughter as many opponents as possible as quickly as possible.
It’s you against the enemy. No gray area. Shoot instantly and move on. Otherwise, you are destroyed, and the game is over.
Mr. Trump’s unprecedented onslaught against so many opponents does not result from something he possesses but from something he lacks: a conscience, which is superfluous to video game warfare.
From this perspective, Mr. Trump’s supposedly astounding “energy” is unremarkable. Many of us could have done the same — if we lacked a conscience, if we did not debate whether or not it was actually in the best interests of our nation to undermine the power of the judiciary, to encourage tyranny abroad or to endanger the health of the world economy.
Mr. Trump’s singular accomplishment is not “verve,” as Mr. Brooks puts it, but the utter absence of a moral compass.
Bruce Lilly
Bloomington, Ind.
To the Editor:
David Brooks’s insightful analysis of the Trump administration may have overestimated the degree to which the current momentum can be attributed to any personal strength of Donald Trump’s.
Having surrounded himself with a coterie of flattering ideologues, Mr. Trump is free to occupy himself with plans for retribution and greater fame while the enablers slide a continuous stream of executive orders across the Resolute Desk for his signature.
Once they have equipped him with the requisite 20-word sound bite on the latest regressive maneuver, they can move on to a new stack of orders, while Mr. Trump preps himself for the next episode of White House theater.
Peter Muller
Wilmington, Del.
To the Editor:
I appreciate David Brooks’s thought-provoking column about President Trump’s drive. But I would add that it is always easier to tear down and destroy than it is to create, build and expand.
I also believe that if it were not for Elon Musk and his DOGE wrecking crew and Project 2025’s ready-to-go government-obliterating blueprint, such rapid damage, chaos and harm would not have occurred as fast nor perhaps on the widespread scale that it has.
Sally Jorgensen
Santa Cruz, Calif.
Cutting Regulations
To the Editor:
Re “Behind the Rush to Discard Rules and Reshape Life” (front page, April 17):
If the Trump administration succeeds in the efforts described in this article, a horrifying future awaits. President Trump and Elon Musk’s latest project is an executive order designed to gut the system of safeguards upon which Americans depend.
Decades-old rules could be on the chopping block, no matter how fundamental they are to the health and wellness of our society. Our workplace safety, clean air and water, civil rights and more are at immediate risk. Corporations and the wealthy will have nearly free rein to cut corners, cheat consumers and pad their pockets.
Coral Davenport’s reporting says the administration is already at work compiling its so-called kill list of regulations. And because it knows that this will be deeply unpopular with the public, it is attempting to entirely skip the public notice and comment process that is required by law.
Even worse, it intends to decline to enforce the public protections that remain on the books. The bitter irony of calling this a “kill list” is that the administration’s attempt to gut safeguards is likely to harm and kill people.
Lisa Gilbert
Washington
The writer is a co-president of Public Citizen.
A Project for Democrats
To the Editor:
Re “Don’t Be Afraid of a Fight” (Round Table, Opinion, April 25):
In this discussion, Elaine Kamarck, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former adviser to President Bill Clinton, correctly affirms that the Democratic Party needs to engage in an internal battle to determine its future direction.
Every fight needs an arena, and in this case Democrats need one where party members of every stripe can work out their differences, settle on shared goals, articulate specific policies and prepare for the restoration of a true democracy.
I don’t know who the host organization might be — a foundation? a think tank? a very brave university? — but I do have an appropriate title for the effort: Project 2029, anyone?
Daniel Okrent
New York
The writer was the public editor of The Times from 2003 to 2005.
A General’s Call to Arms
To the Editor:
Re “Be Not Afraid,” by Stanley McChrystal (Opinion guest essay, April 18):
General McChrystal so articulately expresses principles that exemplify the foundations upon which our nation has rested since its birth, and yet it now teeters fearfully.
Moral rectitude seems to have lost its meaning for many people. I fear that, while I hear the general’s call to arms clearly, it is not apparent to me that others are as attuned to this clarion call.
May we all take courage from one who has not forgotten his oath and duty.
Kathleen Mylotte
Buffalo
To the Editor:
Stanley McChrystal’s essay was brilliant, informative and insightful. How I wish, though, that he had not used a neutral voice, referring to “our leaders” rather than naming the corrosive cultivator of fear in the Oval Office. Is it a sign of our times that he declined to put a name to the man and his movement?
Just to be clear, I mean Donald Trump and MAGA.
Peter Greiff
Madrid
How to Age Well
To the Editor:
“How to Be a Happy 85-Year-Old (Like Me),” by Roger Rosenblatt (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, April 13), made me pause and smile.
I turn 50 next year. As that milestone approaches, I’ve been thinking more about aging, not with dread but with gratitude.
I remember being a kid and thinking my mother was ancient when she turned 30. Now, approaching 50 feels like a gift. I don’t shy away from sharing my age. I’ve lost too many friends who didn’t get the chance to live to this point. Every day I wake up, I’m thankful to still be here.
Mr. Rosenblatt’s piece puts life into perspective. His reminders, especially that “nobody’s thinking about you,” are freeing and grounding. His reflections help me focus on what actually matters: kindness, presence and the joy of still being alive and able to learn.
I hope I’m lucky enough to make it to 85. And if I do, I hope to carry the same clarity, humor and wisdom.
Don C. Sawyer III
Hamden, Conn.
To the Editor:
I’ve read Roger Rosenblatt’s brilliant set of tips on how to be happy at 85. They are a sure recipe for having fun, and they should be given to all octogenarians on their birthday.
Being about to turn 100 in a few months, I have only one tip I might add: Take care of your legs. As long as you’re still mobile, everything else is just a walk in the park.
Bob Neighbour
Toronto
