Letters to the Editor | Nov. 7, 2025

Democratic candidates won the big marquee election contests Tuesday night, especially the gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia. The Democratic winners in those states, notably both women, beat Republican candidates who were closely aligned with President Donald Trump. In this context, their losses may also be viewed as a referendum on him, and a sound rejection of him, as well.

The big night for Democrats can also be taken as a very good omen for favorable outcomes a year from now in the 2026 midterm elections. It’s too early to say that this is the end of Trump’s political clout — and the end of the Trump era — but it just might be the beginning of the end, an event that for me, and millions of others, cannot come soon enough.

Ken Derow, Swarthmore

This year’s pivotal off-year election demonstrates that rumors of the death of the Democratic Party were greatly exaggerated.

Many Trump supporters had cackled over the low approval ratings of the opposition party. A different story was told on Nov. 4, when Democrats decisively prevailed in every major race throughout the country. So much for the public blaming the Democrats for the government shutdown.

Donald Trump declared that he had a sweeping mandate when he eked out a win in the popular vote by a mere 1.5% in 2024. The Democrats who beat Republicans this year won by margins of true landslide proportions, many times that of the president. For now, the pendulum has swung away from the GOP.

As one prominent commentator said on television early in the evening of election night, “I guarantee you they are not exchanging high fives at the White House tonight.”

Let us hope the anti-Republican momentum carries over to the crucial 2026 midterm election, and that the country continues to demonstrate it does not support a bully president who would convert our democratic republic to an autocracy.

Oren Spiegler, Peters Township

Rep. LaMonica McIver’s defense that her prosecution is driven by the administration’s overt political intimidation is spot on. Charged with attacking an immigration officer during a melee outside a detention center in May, Rep. McIver was at the facility in a thwarted effort to provide congressional oversight over a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility. She argues that she is free from prosecution under the Constitution’s speech and debate clause. That argument is buttressed by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2024 granting the president presumptive immunity for acts “within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility.” The court reasoned that “hesitation to execute the duties of his office fearlessly and fairly that might result when a President makes a decision under a pall of political prosecution … raises undue risks to the effective functioning of government.” Substitute “she” for “he” and “Representative” for “President,” and the McIver case fits squarely within the court’s logic. She was certainly “acting within the outer perimeter of her official responsibility” and “safeguarding the independence and functioning of the [Legislative] Branch.” Rep. McIver should be as entitled to immunity for her alleged actions as Donald Trump was for actions far more serious than hers. It would be cosmically ironic if the Supreme Court’s decision allows the chief executive, immune from prosecution, to politically prosecute a representative who was attempting to fearlessly and fairly execute the duties of her office.

Stewart Speck, Wynnewood, speckstewart@gmail.com

I recently took The Inquirer’s supposed citizenship test and have two points of disagreement.

Regarding the question about our nation’s entry into World War I, Germany did not attack the United States. Where in the world do you get that answer? Google it. It was Germany’s use of submarine warfare that had successfully attacked British ships, including the Lusitania, which carried some American citizens. And because of that, it was the potential of attack on the United States, not an actual attack.

Regarding another question, asking for a unique American innovation: While, yes, a skyscraper is an innovation, underlying our entire raison d’être is democracy, a truly unique innovation found nowhere else in the world at that time, so unique we fought a war over it to create our very existence. A skyscraper pales in comparison.

I truly hope these were not lifted from actual citizenship tests, because I think they are faulty at the core.

Mary Mlodzinska, Framingham, Mass.

I appreciate the Opinion section’s recent op-eds on the violence in Chicago and the terror in American classrooms, each of which was a wake-up call for all of us who care about our neighbors and our nation. Most of the immigrant families being targeted by the government are not criminals. These are people who have lived and worked among us for years, pay taxes, and follow the rules.

How is it possible to pardon George Santos and all those who attacked the U.S. Capitol and its police force on Jan. 6, 2021, and at the same time not forgive someone for crossing the border because of poverty, persecution, or climate change? Can we deny the apparent racism involved in removing these people of color and planning to welcome 7,000 white Afrikaners?

At the same time, how does one boast of a remodeled bathroom and an outsized ballroom while delaying the amount of food available for hungry American families?

What is the state of mind of those serving in the military as the administration blows up boats, threatens engagement in Venezuela, Nigeria, and Mexico, and talks about nuclear testing? All of the above has been initiated by someone who never served in the military and actively pursues a Nobel Peace Prize.

We each have a role to play in this crisis. We have been richly blessed, and with God’s grace and community support, we can make a difference.

Sister Veronica Roche, Westmont

So the leaders of the Philadelphia Museum of Art think a new logo is going to increase attendance. Seriously? When has anyone ever looked at a logo and thought, “Wow, that must be a great museum, I’m going to patronize it”? If they want to know how to bring the public in, all they need to do is look northwest, to the Woodmere Art Museum. The current leadership there has changed a sleepy little footnote of a museum into an institution Philadelphians can be proud of. They know that the way to bring people in is simple: engage with them. Their changing exhibitions are not limited to artists who have been traditionally acclaimed, but will often feature artists of color and female artists from the past and present. They host movie nights, jazz nights, classical music nights, and a variety of holiday events that bring in people of all sorts, young and old. Does the PMA do a bit of this, sure, but nowhere near enough to bring in people who are not already devoted museumgoers. So please, improve the logo, jettison the name modification, and just start doing shows, programs, and events that make everyone feel welcome.

Steven B. Erisoty, Philadelphia

The Art Museum took a bold step of putting its previous branding aside and coming up with a bold new look that has a nod to the past. It sends a message that one of the greatest museums in the world isn’t sitting on its laurels waiting for people to come in. It says, “We’re here. We’re vibrant. We’re open to new ideas. See what we have to offer.” The response to the new look has been an overreaction. In time, the sudden change will be appreciated.

Elliott Curson, Philadelphia

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.