Letters to the Editor | Oct. 23, 2026

The Inquirer is to be congratulated on its special Sunday Opinion section, “The Case for Impeachment,” in which its Editorial Board forthrightly calls for the impeachment of President Donald Trump. The board’s central argument was amplified through a series of accompanying essays by prominent scholars and public figures.

In the first week of Trump’s first term, I counted half a dozen reasons justifying Trump’s removal from office. At this point, 21 months into his second term, a full and detailed accounting of his misdeeds would require an encyclopedia.

The only drawback of an impeachment — apart from the Republican members of both chambers of Congress who shirk their duty — is that a successful Trump conviction in the Senate would elevate JD Vance to the presidency; if there were any justice, Vance’s loyal service to the man he once described as “America’s Hitler” should disqualify him from office as well.

First things first, however: The man who most immediately threatens our democracy should be dealt with by the mechanisms in our Constitution provided for that purpose. Further delay imperils us — and stains our history.

Robert Zaller, Bala Cynwyd

The Inquirer’s rationale for impeaching President Donald Trump (again) is, in essence, “maladministration” — a phrase that George Mason originally wanted to add to the Constitution as grounds for impeachment, along with bribery and treason. James Madison would have none of it: “So vague a term would be the equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.” In essence, if a nebulous term like that were added to the Constitution, Congress could remove any president whose policies it didn’t like.

The editorial also cites Trump’s ignoring judicial rulings — as did Presidents Thomas Jefferson in 1807 (the Embargo Act), Andrew Jackson in 1832, and Abraham Lincoln in 1861. Trump, the editorial says, has launched military operations without congressional authorization. As did Presidents Bill Clinton (Kosovo, 1999) and Barack Obama (Libya, 2011.)

The attorney Michael Coard repeats the over-the-top contention that Trump “fomented sedition” by promoting the violent Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021. His exhortation to his audience actually was: “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” Sound familiar? “The right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” is in the First Amendment. The editorial cites “accepting a $400 million luxury jet from a foreign government” as if it were a gift to the president. It was presented to the nation, specifically the Department of Defense, as a temporary replacement of the now 36-year-old Air Force One, because of Boeing’s delay in completing the new one. Even the Trump-hating James Carville says that impeachment would be a waste of time and energy when there are so many other urgent things to address.

Nicholas O’Dell, Phoenixville

While the Editorial Board makes an overwhelmingly compelling case for Donald Trump’s impeachment, I hope the Democrats will resist the temptation to do so, even if they take back the House and Senate. There is no scenario in which the Senate will get the 67 votes needed to convict Trump. Please don’t waste the next two years going after Trump and his family. Yes, they are corrupt and should be held accountable, but an impeachment process that ends up with no consequences for Trump will play right into his victim mentality. It’s what led to his resurgence in 2024. I hope the Democrats spend the next two years legislating and earning the voters’ trust ahead of the 2028 presidential election. Then they can really institute meaningful change to restore our democracy and help those who are suffering as a result of Trump’s corrupt, evil, and immoral actions.

Scott Applebaum, Philadelphia

There were several interesting opinion pieces in Sunday’s Inquirer laying out arguments for impeachment of President Donald Trump — valid all, but to what end? A Democratic House could certainly muster the necessary votes to impeach, but the odds of conviction by two-thirds of the Senate are so small as to approach zero. Then, if not convicted, Trump could truthfully say he was acquitted of all charges. Candidates are currently focused on the economy and the war in Iran — important areas where they might actually accomplish something. That is where the focus should remain, not on a Don Quixote-like quest for the impossible dream of impeachment.

Ron Fronduti, Media

We have already passed the point at which the 25th Amendment should have been invoked. It is clear to any reasonable person that the circumstances warrant it, but Republicans will not act. And even if Democrats regain control of Congress next month, I still do not believe the 25th Amendment will be used — not because they don’t want to use it, but because America cannot bring itself to admit to the world that we have failed to elect a competent and respected leader.

Just as with Vietnam, apartheid, and the Iraq War, we are in this mess too deep. Instead, we will try to manage the problem from within, with the same predictable result: limited, marginal successes while the world watches and waits for us to act decisively and do the right thing.

That, unfortunately, is the reality as I see it.

Tom Rosenberg, Camden County

Lately, as we approach the midterm election, I have noticed increased discussions about a third impeachment of Donald Trump. Such speculation centers on the distinct possibility that the Democrats may take back one or both chambers of Congress. A number of letters to the editor in The Inquirer have been published recently to that effect.

Another impeachment represents an exercise in futility. Articles of impeachment may well be brought in the House, but the trial would be held in the Senate. A two-thirds majority would be required to convict. That translates to 66 votes. Now let us suppose that the Democrats take back the Senate with a majority of 53 or 54 senators. Let us further speculate that a few Republicans would also vote to convict, bringing the total to convict to 57 or 58. That, of course, is far too few to convict. Congress would have attained the power to thwart Trump’s worst impulses and end the Iran war, but he would still remain president.

Gary Kaplan, Warwick

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.