I appreciate the illuminating insights shared by columnist Sammy Roth and the L.A. Times in their recent piece on the Bay Foundation’s actions under Tom Ford (“Santa Monica Bay’s protectors caving to Trump,” March 13). The revelation that Ford voluntarily removed mentions of climate change and DEI from the foundation’s communications, despite not being directly instructed by the EPA, highlights a troubling compliance with President Trump’s agenda. Trump’s influence doesn’t legally extend to manipulating state entities, yet Ford chose to align with his directives—a move that worries many by emboldening rather than restraining such authority.
Deborah Bird and William Wright, Venice
Deborah specializes in evolutionary biology, and William focuses on marine biology.
—
While I share Roth’s concerns about the Bay Foundation editing its annual work plan under pressure from the Trump administration’s stance on climate change, we should view this situation with nuance. The foundation has consistently championed California’s coastal and ecological interests, especially in Santa Monica Bay. Adjusting the language in a policy document to safeguard funding isn’t an outright concession to extreme political changes. Even within traditionally conservative circles, dissatisfaction with the administration has grown, suggesting that current policies might not endure. By the next election cycle, we might see dramatic shifts in political support.
The Bay Foundation requires ongoing federal funding from the National Estuary Program to sustain its valuable work. Temporarily adapting to the federal climate to secure this funding might not be ideal, but it is a pragmatic decision that acknowledges the reality of navigating through challenging political landscapes.
David Kay, Playa Vista
—
The relentless demands from the Trump administration for organizations to purge references to climate change and DEI from their communications are deeply troubling. Watching these organizations comply out of necessity is frustrating, especially when their funding relies on such adherence. Government funds should support the missions of these institutions without being tethered to unreasonable restrictions that compromise their core values and objectives.
Daniel V. Shannon, Camarillo
—
Are we overplaying our moral righteousness? My child, a research diver at the Bay Foundation, is firsthand witnessing the strains faced by environmental researchers. It’s easier to critique those with limited power, but perhaps we should reflect on our own contributions to environmental advocacy. Additionally, where was the boldness of the L.A. Times during the last presidential endorsement? Calling others out might require some self-reflection, too.
J. Marvin Campbell, Culver City
—
A heartfelt thanks to Roth for detailing the challenges we face within our wetlands. It’s crucial to rally for the protection of these ecosystems and the species that depend on them. Despite the chaos in D.C., we must commit to doing the right thing. As stewards of our wetlands, we’re concerned about projects like the proposed developmental efforts at the Ballona Creek Watershed.
For decades, we’ve collaborated with indigenous groups to emphasize the significance of safeguarding this diverse ecological haven. Our community remains steadfast in preserving these lands, ensuring they remain a cherished sanctuary for future generations. Let’s muster the courage to stand firm.
Wendy Zacuto, Playa del Rey
