The Washington Post Won’t Endorse A Candidate In Presidential Race — Update
UPDATED, with Woodward and Bernstein comment: The Washington Post will not endorse a candidate in the presidential race this cycle, breaking with a longtime tradition.
Publisher Will Lewis, in a memo to staffers, wrote that they “are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates.”
More from Deadline
The Post‘s decision follows the revelation that the Los Angeles Times also decided not to endorse this cycle. That led to a backlash among readers and the resignation of the publication’s editor of editorials, Mariel Garza, along with other staffers.
“We recognize that this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility,” Lewis wrote. “That is inevitable. 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: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects.”
But the Post‘s non-endorsement, like that at the Los Angeles Times, quickly raised suspicion that the billionaire owners of both publications were being careful should Donald Trump be elected and return to the White House. Trump has vowed retribution on political opponents, and has suggested retaliatory action against media outlets that have published stories he disagrees with. The Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos and the Los Angeles Times is owned by Patrick Soon-Shiong.
The Washington Post Guild said that according to their own reporters and guild members, a Kamala Harris endorsement was already drafted and the decision not to publish it was made by Bezos.
“We are already seeing cancellations from once loyal readers. This decision undercuts the work of our members at a time when we should be building our readers’ trust, not losing it,” the guild said.
Robert Kagan, editor at large at the Post, resigned following the announcement, according to NPR.
In his memo, Lewis noted that the Post had a policy of not endorsing presidential candidates, but they broke with that tradition in 1976, when the paper’s editorial board backed Jimmy Carter. The last time that the Post did not endorse a political candidate was in 1988, according to NPR.
Martin Baron, the former editor of the Post, denounced the decision in a statement he posted on X.
“This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty,” Baron said. “Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage.”
Baron, who stepped down from the Post in 2021, had presided over a period of hard-hitting investigative pieces on the Trump White House, drawing the then-president’s ire. Trump tweeted out threats to investigate Amazon, which Bezos founded, on antitrust violations. During that period, the Post adopted a new slogan, “Democracy Dies In Darkness.”
In his Status newsletter earlier this week, Oliver Darcy first wrote about the possibility that the Post would not endorse.
Later today, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, said in a statement to the Post, “We respect the traditional independence of the editorial page, but this decision 12 days out from the 2024 presidential election ignores the Washington Post’s own overwhelming reportorial evidence on the threat Donald Trump poses to democracy. Under Jeff Bezos’s ownership, the Washington Post’s news operation has used its abundant resources to rigorously investigate the danger and damage a second Trump presidency could cause to the future of American democracy and that makes this decision even more surprising and disappointing, especially this late in the electoral process.”
Ten Post columnists published a statement objecting to the decision, calling it a “terrible mistake.”
“This is a moment for the institution to be making clear its commitment to democratic values, the rule of law and international alliances, and the threat that Donald Trump poses to them — the precise points The Post made in endorsing Trump’s opponents in 2016 and 2020,” they wrote. “There is no contradiction between The Post’s important role as an independent newspaper and its practice of making political endorsements, both as a matter of guidance to readers and as a statement of core beliefs. That has never been more true than in the current campaign. An independent newspaper might someday choose to back away from making presidential endorsements. But this isn’t the right moment, when one candidate is advocating positions that directly threaten freedom of the press and the values of the Constitution.”
The decision also led to a wave of figures declaring that they were canceling their subscriptions, including celebrities like Jeffrey Wright and Stephen King. But some staffers upset with the decision cautioned readers not to do so.
Carol Leonnig, investigative reporter and Pulitzer Prize winner, wrote on X, “I too worry about the timing and odd explanation for The Post’s change in endorsement policy.”
She added, “My fear is that this signals a tip-toeing deference to a candidate. And that spells trouble what I care deeply about: revelatory reporting without fear or favor, no matter who is upset by the truth we reveal.”
But she urged readers not to cancel. “It will only hurt the independent newsgathering my colleagues and I strive to do for you every day. Thank you to many who reached out about this news and agreed to keep subscribing.”
Best of Deadline
Sign up for Deadline's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.