Letters to the Editor | April 30, 2026

President Donald Trump’s argument that his ballroom is needed for security reasons suggests he should no longer appear anywhere outside the White House. We should no longer see him outdoors, on the campaign trail for Republican candidates around the country, in television studios, at sporting events, waving to adoring crowds in auditoriums, or talking to reporters on Air Force One. Didn’t Hitler have his own bunker toward the end of his horrific reign?

Steven Miller, Doylestown

We should say no to the grotesque, obscene, trashy proposed emperor-style ballroom. It might be appropriate for a remake of a Cecil B. DeMille movie set, but it would represent an architectural atrocity in Washington, D.C. Mar-a-Lago is enough of a monument for us to remember the terrible Trump era.

Walter Ceglowski, Philadelphia

After the unfortunate attempt to shoot up the White House correspondents’ dinner, politicians argued that it showed why President Donald Trump’s giant, luxurious ballroom is genuinely needed, since it would allow greater security at similar events.

The nation does not need more places where the media, the politicians, and the wealthy class they depend on for financial support can mingle, schmooze, and admire each other. The nation needs politicians who stay out of gilded ballrooms and spend a lot more time with ordinary people, so they can begin to address the real problems voters are facing — including wealth disparities that seem to grow more extreme every day, while people struggle to pay for education, decent housing, and healthcare.

If we need a giant auditorium in D.C., let it be attached to the halls of Congress, so that voters can more easily consort with their elected representatives — whether or not they support, or pass muster with, the president currently in power.

Alan Vomacka, Philadelphia

In 1993, a somber evening ceremony was held in a Narberth park bemoaning the expiration of the federal ban on assault weapons, which ended the 10-year term of one of the nation’s most important gun control efforts.

On March 30, 1981, John Hinckley shot President Ronald Reagan and his press secretary, Jim Brady, in front of the very same hotel, the Washington Hilton, that Cole Allen attempted to assassinate President Donald Trump and other administration officials last week. Fortunately, the attempt was unsuccessful, and the perpetrator was quickly captured by alert law enforcement personnel. In response to the attempt on President Reagan’s life, Congress passed the Brady Bill in 1993 with bipartisan support. It instituted rules on background checks and other measures aimed at keeping firearms out of the hands of convicted felons, emotionally disturbed people, domestic abusers, and others. President Reagan, along with former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, backed the legislation.

Fast-forward to 2026, and we see that the assassination attempt at the correspondents’ dinner is being used by President Trump to promote his ballroom project at the White House. Republican lawmakers are pushing legislation to fund the project with taxpayer funds. My, how times have changed. There’s been nary a word about new gun control laws. It appears we have given up. When will we learn what almost every other civilized country has learned: that gun control works and is needed now more than ever.

Angus Love, Narberth

Join the conversation: Send letters to letters@inquirer.com. Limit length to 150 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.