The Washington Post’s recent decision to forgo endorsing a presidential candidate for the first time in over 30 years has sparked significant backlash from both current and former staff. What motivated this controversial choice?

In a statement released on Friday, less than two weeks ahead of the 2024 presidential election, Will Lewis, the newspaper’s publisher and CEO, announced, “We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates.” This marks a departure from a long-standing tradition that began with the endorsement of Jimmy Carter in 1976.

The decision has drawn condemnation from prominent figures, including Marty Baron, the former executive editor of the Post. Baron labeled the move “cowardice, with democracy as its casualty,” suggesting it invites further intimidation from figures like Donald Trump. He expressed disappointment, saying it reflects “disturbing spinelessness at an institution famed for courage.”

Former U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice also criticized the decision, calling it “hypocritical” and pointing to the newspaper’s slogan, “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” She described the choice as one of the most cowardly actions from a publication meant to hold power accountable. Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Maraniss echoed that sentiment, stating, “The paper I’ve loved working at for 47 years is dying in darkness.” Reports indicate that Robert Kagan, the paper’s editor at large, has resigned from the editorial board in response to the announcement.

An anonymous senior staffer shared their dismay with The Guardian, noting the editorial board had recently won a Pulitzer for confronting authoritarianism and defending democracy. “How sad is it that we can’t do that at home?” they lamented. “There’s a lot of sadness and frustration among staff… it feels like a blow to WaPo’s long tradition of courageous coverage.”

The controversy comes on the heels of a similar decision by the Los Angeles Times, where billionaire owner Patrick Soon-Shiong blocked an endorsement for Kamala Harris, leading to staff resignations and subscription cancellations amidst anger.

Lewis defended the Post’s stance as consistent with its values, suggesting it supports readers’ rights to make informed choices in the upcoming election. He maintained that the role of the newspaper is to provide non-partisan news and thought-provoking opinions, emphasizing independence.

However, NPR reports that many staff at the Washington Post reacted with shock and negativity over the decision. The Washington Post Guild expressed “deep concern,” particularly given the proximity to a critical election, asserting that the editorial board’s role is to guide readers through opinions and endorsements.

Sources indicate that an endorsement for Harris had been drafted before this last-minute decision, leaving staff stunned. Similar shockwaves were felt at the Los Angeles Times over its decision, leading to resignations from board members like Mariel Garza, who stated, “In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up.”

Contrasting these developments, the New York Times had endorsed Kamala Harris in September, labeling her “the only choice” for president, while the Guardian also extended its support to her. As the political landscape evolves, the implications of these editorial decisions continue to unfold, stirring significant debate.