For the first time in more than 30 years, The Washington Post announced Friday that its editorial board will not endorse a candidate for president.

“We are returning to our roots and are not endorsing any presidential candidates,” Will Lewis, publisher and chief executive of the newspaper, said in a statement Friday, less than two weeks before the 2024 presidential election.

The Washington Post editorial board has supported a candidate in almost every presidential election since it supported Jimmy Carter in 1976. Jeff Bezos, the billionaire owner of Amazon, bought the post office in 2013.

Postal leadership’s decision not to endorse a candidate in an election widely seen as the most consequential in recent U.S. history sparked outrage among some prominent former employees.

Marty Baron, the former editor-in-chief of the Washington Post, criticized the newspaper’s decision, calling it “cowardice of which democracy is the victim.”

Donald Trump, Baron said, will see this “as an invitation to further intimidate the owner” of the Washington Post, billionaire Jeff Bezos. “Disturbing spinelessness in an institution known for its courage,” he added.

Susan Rice, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and a former domestic policy adviser to the Biden administration, called the decision “hypocritical.”

“So much for ‘Democracy dies in the dark,'” she said, referring to the newspaper’s official slogan, which was adopted under Bezos’ ownership in 2017. “This is the most hypocritical and shitty move by a publication that is supposed to hold those in power accountable.”

David Moraniss, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and editor at the Post, added: “The newspaper I loved working for for 47 years is dying in obscurity.”

The Washington Post’s decision comes after widespread shock over a similar decision earlier this week by billionaire Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong to block a planned presidential endorsement of Kamala Harris. This move sparked high-profile resignations at the publication out of anger from the staff.

In his statement about the Post’s decision, Lewis pointed to previous times when the newspaper’s editorial board decided not to support presidential candidates, citing independent journalism that Lewis described as “right” and to which the newspaper is now “returning.”

“We recognize that this will be interpreted in a variety of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, a condemnation of another, or an abdication of responsibility,” Lewis said.

“It’s inevitable,” he said, adding: “We don’t see it that way.”

Rather, Lewis said it was “consistent with the values” the newspaper stood for and with what the newspaper wanted in a leader: “character and courage in the service of American ethics, reverence for the rule of law and respect for the people.” People. “Freedom in all its aspects”.

Lewis added that he believes the non-endorsement is also a statement that supports readers’ ability to form their own opinions about the most consequential of all American decisions – “who to vote for as the next president.”

“Our mission at The Washington Post is to provide unbiased news for all Americans through the newsroom and to provide thought-provoking, reported views from our opinion team to help our readers form their own opinions,” he said, adding: “Most importantly, as a newspaper in the capital of the most important country in the world, our job is to be independent.”

“And that is what we are and will be,” he concluded.

NPR reported that many Washington Post employees reacted “shocked” and “universally negative.”

The Washington Post Guild, the union that represents many of the paper’s employees, said in a statement Friday that it was “deeply concerned” by the paper’s decision, “particularly just 11 days before an extremely consequential election.”

“The role of an newsroom is to do just that: share opinions on news that impacts our society and culture, and endorse candidates to provide guidance to readers,” she added.

The Columbia Journalism Review also reported Friday that the Washington Post editorial board had already drafted a recommendation for Vice President Kamala Harris, saying that editorial page editor David Shipley had already told the editorial board a week ago that the recommendation was in This left the board and staff “stunned” when the announcement was made on Friday.

At the Los Angeles Times, the decision not to support the proposal led to its editor-in-chief, Mariel Garza, and several other board members resigning in protest.

“In dangerous times, honest people must stand up. This is how I stand up,” Garza told the Columbia Journalism Review about her decision to resign.

A Los Angeles Times journalist called her newspaper’s decision “unreal” and “cowardly.”

Unlike the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post, the New York Times editorial board endorsed Kamala Harris in September, calling her “the only choice” for president.

The Guardian has also endorsed Harris.