Skip to content

Letters to the Editor | Feb. 20, 2026

Inquirer readers on Super Bowl scheduling and the exodus of scientists from government roles.

Philadelphia Eagles head coach Nick Sirianni kisses the Lombardi trophy after they defeat the Kansas City Chiefs in the NFL Super Bowl LIX game Feb. 9, 2025, in New Orleans.
Philadelphia Eagles head coach Nick Sirianni kisses the Lombardi trophy after they defeat the Kansas City Chiefs in the NFL Super Bowl LIX game Feb. 9, 2025, in New Orleans.Read moreDavid Maialetti / Staff Photographer

National holiday

I am an avid Eagles fan. I was convinced they would be in the Super Bowl this year, but it was not to be. However, I still love to watch the game and did so a couple of weekends ago with friends and family.

For millions of Americans, Super Bowl Sunday is a welcome day of celebration. This year’s game was watched by about 125 million people. In any given year, many Americans take “sick days” on the Monday after the game, including this year: An estimated 26 million people were expected to miss work, up from 16 million in 2025 when the Birds won.

Here’s an idea: Instead of holding the Super Bowl on the second Sunday in February, the NFL should move the game to the third Sunday of the month. Why? The following day is Presidents Day, a national holiday, always observed on the third Monday of February — and a day in which millions of Americans don’t have to go to work.

The number of people taking part in “Super Sick Monday” would be greatly reduced, and it would be a change welcomed by many.

Ed Vreeswyk, Yardville

Epstein class

While the Trump administration continues to fail to keep the Jeffrey Epstein scandal out of the headlines, I keep thinking of my favorite Maya Angelou quote: “When someone shows you who they are, believe them.”

As director of Sudan and South Sudan Programs at the U.S. Agency for International Development, my firsthand experience of the Epstein class came in the form of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. The U.S. Department of Justice’s latest release of the Epstein files featured more than 1,000 mentions of Musk.

As the president, another one of the Epstein files’ main characters, allowed the unelected billionaire to go about “feeding USAID into the wood chipper,” Marco Rubio promised USAID’s “lifesaving” programming would be spared. My colleagues and I desperately argued that our work saved lives. It wasn’t a hard case to make — Sudan and South Sudan represent two of the world’s largest humanitarian catastrophes.

By the end of February 2025, DOGE had cut 90% of USAID’s programming. Estimates indicate approximately 762,000 people have died, including more than 500,000 children. One study warns that the dismantling of USAID could lead to more than 14 million deaths by 2030.

These lives, like the lives of those trafficked by Epstein, were of no consequence to the Epstein class. They have shown us who they are. We need to believe them.

Maura O’Brien, Ardmore

War on scientists

The present administration has worked hard to discredit science and remove scientific researchers from any government positions. They have labeled climate change as a liberal hoax and claimed that children receive too many vaccinations. Measles, all but eradicated, has made a strong resurgence. As a result of this “war on science,” more than 10,000 science workers have left the government. In an effort to profit from these foolish policy decisions, the European Union has created a fund to attract these scientists to Europe. We are driving away the occupations that have created the greatness that was America.

Edward Hackett, Phoenixville

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.