The Washington Post Declines Presidential Endorsement for First Time in Decades, Sparking Internal Backlash
For the first time in decades, The Washington Post has decided not to endorse a candidate in the upcoming presidential election. Announced on Friday by publisher Will Lewis, this decision marks a significant departure from the paper’s long-standing tradition, prompting strong reactions among its editorial staff and across the journalism community. In a statement, Lewis said, “We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates,” emphasizing that this decision aligns with The Post‘s values of impartiality and commitment to journalistic integrity.
A Return to Editorial Independence
According to insiders at The Post, the decision was initiated by Amazon founder and newspaper owner Jeff Bezos. The Post has endorsed a candidate in every election since the 1980s, most recently supporting Democratic candidates. The editorial board had even prepared an endorsement for Vice President Kamala Harris, though it was never finalized, leaving many on the editorial team disappointed. “Many on the editorial board are surprised and angry,” a source revealed.
The change has evoked mixed responses, with some seeing it as a step toward nonpartisan reporting, while others interpret it as a controversial stance potentially signaling implicit support for one candidate by omission. Lewis addressed these concerns, stating, “We don’t see it that way. We see it as consistent with the values The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader.”
Staff Reactions and Resignations
The decision not to endorse has sparked strong internal reactions, with some editors voicing frustration. Robert Kagan, an opinion editor-at-large, resigned in protest, alleging that Bezos’s decision was intended to appease former President Donald Trump. Kagan pointed to past threats by Trump toward Bezos and The Post, noting that “Bezos runs one of the largest companies in America,” which holds significant federal contracts that Trump could influence if he regains office.
Marty Baron, The Post‘s former executive editor, echoed these concerns. Under Baron’s leadership, The Post won a Pulitzer Prize for its reporting on the January 6 Capitol attack. Baron described the decision as “cowardice” and asserted, “Democracy doesn’t die in darkness; it dies when people anticipatorily consent to a fascist’s whims.”
A National Shift in Editorial Practices
This decision mirrors a broader trend among U.S. media outlets retreating from formal endorsements. Reasons for this trend include maintaining impartiality, reducing perceived influence on readers, and adapting to the shifting political landscape. Earlier this year, The New York Times opted not to endorse in local races but eventually backed Harris in the presidential race, referring to her as “the only patriotic choice.” Major newspaper chains like McClatchy and Alden Global Capital have also stopped endorsing presidential candidates. Other prominent publications, including The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Houston Chronicle, have endorsed Harris, describing the alternative as “an aspiring autocrat who ignores the law.”
Staff Response: Loyalty vs. Frustration
Inside The Post, the announcement has underscored divisions among staff members. While some journalists expressed dismay publicly, Pulitzer Prize-winning editor David Maraniss shared on social media, “The paper I’ve loved working at for 47 years is dying in darkness.” Others voiced concerns about the timing and implications of the decision, with one staffer commenting, “If you’ve read The Post for the last few years and all the facts the news side has uncovered, I’m not sure you need the editorial board to tell you what to do.”
A Tense Atmosphere as Election Approaches
The Washington Post’s choice places it in a unique position among media giants that continue endorsing candidates. With the election approaching, the paper’s reputation for rigorous reporting and impartiality will be under heightened scrutiny. Some staff members have voiced concerns that this decision could affect The Post’s perceived alignment, potentially influencing public opinion and the election’s outcome.
As the implications of this move unfold, The Washington Post has taken a strikingly unprecedented step, fueling debate within its newsroom and across the media landscape about the press’s role in modern elections.