To the Editor:
Belgium’s 4-1 victory over the United States in the World Cup on Monday did more than advance a team; it spared us from an unnecessary political spectacle.
As a former U.S. Army officer who worked closely with NATO forces, I know how central Belgium is to our national security; it hosts the alliance’s political and military headquarters. Many Americans may not realize how much we rely on our Belgian allies.
Yes, the red card issued to the U.S. striker Folarin Balogun in the match against Bosnia and Herzegovina last week was a close call, but close calls are part of sport and part of life. My college football coach, Earl Banks, taught us that as many calls will go against you as for you — and it’s how you respond that matters more.
What should have ended on the field, though, instead became an off‑field foul. President Trump’s phone call to FIFA’s president, Gianni Infantino, requesting a review of the referee’s decision was wholly inappropriate. The referee, Raphael Claus, followed proper procedure after instruction from the video assistant referee crew. The process worked as designed.
That a president of a nation would attempt to intervene in a routine officiating decision suggests either a misunderstanding of rules — of games and of life — or a belief that those rules do not apply to him.
To my Belgian friends: Bedankt. Danke. Merci beaucoup. Your national team’s performance spared us from weeks of needless controversy and allowed the World Cup to proceed on the merits of the game.
Roland Nicholson Jr.
Washington
To the Editor:
President Trump did not cause the United States men’s soccer team to lose decisively in the World Cup on Monday. American miscues and a superior Belgian team did that.
What Mr. Trump did do was divide Americans, as he so often does, by turning what had been a celebration of U.S. soccer into yet another spectacle about himself. In doing so, he soured what had been a joyous event.
To the Editor:
Re “Court Delivered Enduring Wins for Right Wing” (news analysis, front page, July 3):
Critics of the recent Supreme Court opinion that vastly increased the power of the president to dismiss members of federal agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission have been correct to warn of the baleful effect of that ruling. But they are wrong to treat that opinion as simply a right-wing victory.
Democrats will win their share of presidential races in the future and may well use or misuse the newly expanded presidential power over such agencies. The result, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor put it in her dissenting opinion, “is a president who emerges with far greater power than ever before.”
The core problem with the ruling is thus not that the right wing is newly triumphant but that unchecked executive power threatens the independence of those agencies.
That is true of the Trump administration. It would be just as true and just as disturbing if the newly emboldened left of the Democratic Party achieves power someday and fires competent and even admirable public servants simply because they were appointed by a Republican president.
Floyd Abrams
New York
The writer is a lawyer and the author of “The Soul of the First Amendment.”
No Phones? How Novel.
To the Editor:
I read “The Touch Grass Challenge, Week 3: Host a ’90s-Style Hangout” (Here to Help, June 21) with a smile on my face and a bit of disbelief.
My friends and I always get together for coffee, lunch or a hike, and going without active phones is never an issue. We might have them in our purses, but they’re on vibrate and just not taken out.
We chat about anything and everything: latest books read, whom we’ve seen, lectures we’ve been to, recent trips and the inescapable health updates.
It never occurred to me that this is a ’90s thing. Maybe all of us being in our 70s is what makes the difference. Being fully present just seems normal — no Week 3 challenge needed!
Mary Graham
Grand Junction, Colo.
