USA Today joins the Washington Post and L.A. Times in not endorsing a presidential candidate. Here’s a closer look at the controversy.

Joining newspapers like the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, USA Today announced Monday that it would not endorse a presidential candidate for the 2024 election.

A spokesperson for USA Today told the Daily Beast that instead of an endorsement, the paper will provide “readers with the facts that matter and the trusted information they need to make informed decisions.”

The Post’s publisher, Will Lewis, framed the decision as a return to the paper’s roots as an independent voice — though the editorial board says it had drafted an endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris that was allegedly blocked by owner Jeff Bezos (a claim Lewis denies). Bezos has since defended the decision.

The Post's humor writer, Alexandra Petri, ended up using her column to endorse Harris after the fact. Post editor at large Robert Kagan and opinion columnist Michele Norris publicly resigned in response to the non-endorsement. As of Monday afternoon, over 200,000 readers cancelled their subscriptions, per NPR.

At the L.A. Times, owner Patrick Soon-Shiong defended the decision not to endorse, stating he was merely respecting a decision made by his paper’s editorial board. However, several board members openly disputed this, asserting they had prepared an endorsement for Harris that was ultimately blocked by Soon-Shiong. The fallout was swift, with multiple staffers issuing their resignations and readers declaring that they would cancel their subscriptions, prompting the union that represents many Times employees to issue a statement urging them not to do so.

The L.A. Times had endorsed a presidential candidate each cycle since 2004, while the Post’s presidential endorsements date back to 1988. USA Today, which endorsed Joe Biden in 2020, has been making presidential endorsements since 1982.

The move by the papers to opt out of backing a candidate in the coming presidential election follows a trend that has been building among newspapers in recent years, as organizations have become wary of alienating subscribers and deepening political divides.

Here’s a closer look at the evolution of such endorsements and the debate over whether newspapers should continue to make them.

Newspaper endorsements are wavering

Historically, newspaper endorsements — from presidential races to local elections — served as a guide, offering readers insight into candidates’ qualifications through the publication’s editorial lens.

In today’s polarized climate, however, endorsements have turned into a double-edged sword. Critics contend that they can amplify perceptions of bias and partisanship, potentially alienating segments of a paper’s readership.

As a result, many publications have opted out of endorsements entirely.

In 2022, for example, over 200 outlets owned by investment firm Alden Global Capital, including the Chicago Tribune and Denver Post, announced they would cease endorsing major political candidates, citing public discourse and the prevalence of “culture wars.”

Similarly, the New York Times stated earlier this year that it would stop endorsing candidates in state races, although it would continue backing U.S. presidential candidates. The Minnesota Star Tribune followed suit in August, choosing not to endorse candidates or causes in 2024, pledging instead to offer robust analysis to help readers make informed decisions.

Post and L.A. Times staffers resign in protest

The decisions by the Post and L.A. Times not to endorse a presidential candidate led to multiple resignations. The timing of that choice — less than two weeks before the election — was particularly concerning for some editors.

Former Post executive editor Marty Baron described the move as “cowardice, with democracy as its casualty.”

L.A. Times editorials editor Mariel Garza wrote in her resignation letter, “People will justifiably wonder if each endorsement was a decision made by a group of journalists after extensive research and discussion, or through decree by the owner,” according to the Wrap.

According to the Washington Post, L.A. Times journalists Robert Greene and Karin Klein also stepped down in protest, with Greene sharing a statement with the Columbia Journalism Review explaining that the paper’s decision “hurt particularly because one of the candidates, Donald Trump, has demonstrated such hostility to principles that are central to journalism — respect for the truth and reverence for democracy.”

In a statement shared on Facebook, Klein stressed that Soon-Shiong “blocked our voice” when he decided to scrap the editorial team’s endorsement of Harris.

L.A. Times owner's daughter speaks out

On Saturday, Patrick Soon-Shiong's daughter, Nika Soon-Shiong, told the New York Times that her father’s decision not to endorse Harris was driven by Harris’s support for Israel’s military actions in Gaza.

“Our family made the joint decision not to endorse a presidential candidate. This was the first and only time I have been involved in the process,” she said. “As a citizen of a country openly financing genocide, and as a family that experienced South African apartheid, the endorsement was an opportunity to repudiate justifications for the widespread targeting of journalists and ongoing war on children.”

Patrick Soon-Shiong, who purchased the Times in 2018 for $500 million, later refuted her comments, telling CNN that his daughter "speaks in her own personal capacity."

“She does not have any role at the L.A. Times, nor does she participate in any decision or discussion with the editorial board, as has been made clear many times,” he said.

Cancellations are mounting

The guild that represents many L.A. Times employees acknowledged that readers have threatened to cancel their subscriptions, while pleading with them not to abandon the publication that pays their salaries.

“Before you hit the ‘cancel’ button: That subscription underwrites the salaries of hundreds of journalists in our newsroom,” the statement said. “Our member-journalists work every day to keep readers informed during these tumultuous times. A healthy democracy is an informed democracy.”

Meanwhile, former Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney, a Republican, and author Stephen King announced they’ve canceled their subscriptions to the Post. Over 200,00 other readers have reportedly followed suit.

Former editors blame billionaire owners

Some journalists argue that these non-endorsements prioritize the interests of the papers’ billionaire owners — Jeff Bezos and Patrick Soon-Shiong — over their readers, suggesting they are motivated by a desire to avoid backlash from Donald Trump if he wins the presidency.

Kagan highlighted this perceived conflict of interest in an interview with CNN.

“This is obviously an effort by Jeff Bezos to curry favor with Donald Trump,” he said. “Trump has threatened to go after Bezos’s business. Bezos runs one of the largest companies in America. They have tremendously intricate relations with the federal government. They depend on the federal government.”

On Oct. 28, Bezos defended the move in an op-ed for the Post.

“Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election,” Bezos wrote. “What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one.”

Which papers have endorsed Harris or Trump?

While some papers have stepped back from endorsing candidates, others remain committed to the practice.

As of Sunday, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Seattle Times, the Las Vegas Sun and the New Yorker have endorsed Harris.

Meanwhile, Trump has received backing from the New York Post, the Washington Times and the Las Vegas Review-Journal.