The Washington Post editorial board hasn't endorsed a single Republican for president over the past 50 years. It isn't endorsing one this cycle, either, but it's the fact that it isn't endorsing Kamala Harris either that has caused yet another uproar at an elite media institution.
"The winner of the election is going to be sitting down the street from The Washington Post," longtime Post media writer Paul Farhi told Fox News Digital. "I mean, you don't think you have an opinion about that? Sure you do. And so it just makes it all the more curious and odd that they should back off this way."
A look at the paper's recent history and coverage of Trump leaves no doubt as to where it stands on the GOP standard-bearer, which it's called the worst president in modern history who should have been removed from office after the January 6 Capitol riot.
The Post announced on Friday that it would not be offering an endorsement in the upcoming presidential election or any future one, in what publisher Will Lewis said was a "returning to our roots." The Post had endorsed a Democrat for president in every election since 1976, except for when it skipped one in 1988. The Los Angeles Times also made waves this month after deciding not to endorse for president in spite of its clear antipathy toward Trump.
Had the Post's announcement been made a year ago, it might not have caused such a stir. But 11 days before a consequential election, after years of calling Trump an unfit disgrace, its decision set off cold fury at the paper and unprecedented outrage from former Post luminaries.
At least two members of the Post's staff have resigned. Nineteen Post columnists have signed onto a letter condemning the decision, specifically calling on Trump to be identified as a threat to the rule of law and the country. Subscribers have reportedly canceled by the hundreds and into the thousands.
And the paper's union fretted that management was interfering with independent journalism, due to reports that the Post's owner, Amazon chief Jeff Bezos, forced the move in light of Trump's possible return to power.
Yet the paper's editorials could leave no doubt as to where it stands on the 45th president and who should be the 47th.
On Oct. 12, it castigated Trump's "insidious" rhetoric in recent interviews and rallies. On Sept. 11, it said he lost his debate to Kamala Harris on "tone and substance." It's said in recent months he would govern "chaotically," that Harris is clearly "better" when comparing the two candidates, and that he had a "reservoir of grievance" at his Republican nomination acceptance speech.
He has an "extreme agenda" and is "unpredictable" and "outright dangerous," the Post argued earlier this year when it feared then-presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden could lose the race; he would later step aside and be replaced by Harris.
JONATHAN TURLEY: WHY I'M CONGRATULATING THE WASHINGTON POST
In 2016 and 2020, the Post enthusiastically endorsed Hillary Clinton and Biden against Trump. It called him "dreadful" and "uniquely unqualified" in 2016. In 2020, it referred to Trump as "the worst president of modern times."
Farhi, who left the the Post after 35 years in 2023, is among those who was puzzled by the logic in deciding not to offer an endorsement that would reflect the newspaper's values, even if it wouldn't move the needle with voters.
"Let's say the Post, like the New York Times, endorsed Harris, which it appears they were intending to do until the intervention by Bezos," Farhi told Fox News Digital. "Would anyone care? No one would care because what do you expect? The Post isn't going to endorse Trump, so, oh they endorsed Harris? Well, The New York Times endorsed Harris at the end of September. It was not a big deal … I just don't get the larger thinking about this."
In addition, Farhi noted, the Post's reporters have sharply probed and investigated Trump's rhetoric, policies, scandals, business dealings and more over the years. Its motto, "Democracy Dies in Darkness," was adopted in 2017, shortly after Trump took office, although the paper denied it was a direct response to him.
"The Post has a very long track record of having written story after story investigating Trump, and in fact, lots of editorials about Trump's behavior and Trump's record in office, so why would an endorsement be the thing that triggers Trump?" Farhi asked.
The Post has not completely supported Harris either, criticizing her earlier this year for her "gimmicks" on the economy such as a plan to ban "price gouging," and offering up questions it would love to ask her, such as why she's changed so many positions since her ill-fated 2020 primary campaign.
But an endorsement of Harris was reportedly drafted and ready to publish before Bezos pulled the plug. Instead of a fully expected statement of support by a liberal editorial board that plainly views Trump as a threat to the republic, an 11th-hour declaration of neutrality served only to sow confusion and anger.
"Today has been an absolute stab in the back," left-wing Post columnist Karen Attiah wrote on Friday. "What an insult to those of us who have literally put our careers and lives on the line, to call out threats to human rights and democracy."
