Joe Davidson, a longtime Washington Post columnist, publicly acknowledged his resignation this week after the paper killed one of his columns for being “too opinionated,” calling out Jeff Bezos in what he described as a damaging editorial shift.
Davidson announced his departure from WaPo in his final “Federal Insider” column last month. He then expounded on his decision in a Tuesday Facebook post. He said the decision was based on a piece he’d written earlier for the paper that was spiked because it was “deemed too opinionated under an unwritten and inconsistently enforced policy.” The journalist cited he had not heard of the rule previously nor had it been enforced. Davidson, 75, joined the paper in 2005 and had been writing the column since 2008.
While Davidson said he did not have reason to believe Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos was directly involved in the axing of his article, he noted it would be “naïve to ignore the context.”
“Starting before the November presidential election, Bezos’s policies and activities have projected the image of a Donald Trump supplicant,” he said “The result – fleeing journalists, plummeting morale and disappearing subscriptions. Since October, when Bezos blocked publication of a planned Post endorsement of Kamala Harris for president, the departure of Post talent has been shocking and included five former editors directly above me in the newsroom’s hierarchy.”
Indeed, many high-profile staffers have quit including former opinion editor David Shipley and longtime columnist Ruth Marcus. A number of the resignations came after Bezos brought in Will Lewis as CEO and made a February announcement saying the paper’s opinion section would be focused on “two pillars” moving forward, free markets and personal liberties. Davidson said that coverage of Trump stayed consistent but that the new policy restricted any scrutiny of the president. He also said he was blown away by just how strict the new editorial policy was compared to years past.
“Blocking my column because it was too opinionated was a shock. I’ve authored many pieces over my 17 years writing the ‘Federal Diary’ (renamed the ‘Federal Insider’ in 2016), that were at least if not more opinionated as the now dead one,” he said. “In that piece, I argued that ‘one hallmark of President Donald Trump’s first three, turbulent months in office is his widespread, ominous attack on thought, belief and speech.’”
The writer described the experience as a “death blow” to his life as a columnist but said he tried to stay the course to see if he “could cope with the restrictions.” He gave several specific examples of the editorial chokeholds he faced including describing a potential pay raise for federal employees as “well-deserved” as crossing the policy line.
“As a columnist, I can’t live with that level of constraint,” he concluded “A column without commentary made me a columnist without a column. I also was troubled by significant inconsistencies in the implementation of the policy.” Davidson said that while he will no longer work at the paper he will still be a subscriber because of the outstanding journalists still there.
The news of his resignation came the same week that Lewis encouraged staffers who do not “feel aligned” with the news company’s “reinvention” to resign. Spotlighting The Post’s so-called “voluntary separation program” that offers buyouts for exiting employees, Lewis said “I truly wish you the best of luck” to employees who are weighing whether or not the company’s direction is for them — and that “if you believe in our next chapter, I’m excited for the work ahead of us.”
You can read Davidson’s post in full below:
Quitting The Washington Post — or did it quit me?
Washington Post Columnist.
What a great title in the world of journalism.
But it’s not worth keeping at any cost.
For me, the cost became too great when a Federal Insider column I wrote was killed because it was deemed too opinionated under an unwritten and inconsistently enforced policy, which I had not heard of previously. My resignation, after 20 years with The Post, took effect this month.
While the policy prohibiting opinion and commentary in News section articles can be justified journalistically, it is a departure from longstanding Post practice and mandated a change in my role that I chose not to accept. Some readers who commented on my final column skewered Post owner Jeff Bezos. I have no reason to believe he was directly involved in my situation, but it would be naïve to ignore the context.
Starting before the November presidential election, Bezos’s policies and activities have projected the image of a Donald Trump supplicant. The result – fleeing journalists, plummeting morale and disappearing subscriptions. Since October, when Bezos blocked publication of a planned Post endorsement of Kamala Harris for president, the departure of Post talent has been shocking and included five former editors directly above me in the newsroom’s hierarchy. Nonetheless, Post coverage of Trump remains strong. Yet the policy against opinion in News section columns means less critical scrutiny of Trump — a result coinciding with Bezos’s unseemly and well-document coziness with the president.
Blocking my column because it was too opinionated was a shock. I’ve authored many pieces over my 17 years writing the Federal Diary (renamed the Federal Insider in 2016), that were at least if not more opinionated as the now dead one. In that piece, I argued that “one hallmark of President Donald Trump’s first three, turbulent months in office is his widespread, ominous attack on thought, belief and speech.”
The piece contained specific examples, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s alarming memo supporting deportation of Columbia University pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil. Rubio said Khalil could be expelled for “expected beliefs…that are otherwise lawful.” What immigrants might believe in the future now can make them federal law enforcement targets.
Another far-reaching example I cited is Trump’s aggressive attack on speech promoting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). His executive order commanded federal agencies to “excise references to DEI and DEIA [“A” for accessibility] principles, under whatever name they may appear.” Also, Tufts University student Rumeysa Ozturk, of Turkey, was abducted off the street by masked officers because she co-wrote an op-ed critical of Israel. It was a terrifying sight, caught on video, which previously would have seemed more applicable to George Orwell’s dystopian and cautionary tale against totalitarianism and thought police in is novel “1984.” This is America in 2025.
Killing that column was a death blow to my life as a Washington Post columnist. But I wrote two more articles to see if I could cope with the restrictions. That’s when I learned just how severe the policy is. In my next piece, I was not allowed to describe a potential pay raise for federal employees as “well-deserved” because of Post policy.
As a columnist, I can’t live with that level of constraint. A column without commentary made me a columnist without a column. I also was troubled by significant inconsistencies in the implementation of the policy. During this period, The Post allowed stronger, opinionated language by other staffers, including the words “viciousness,” “cruelty” and “meanness” to describe Trump’s actions.
I’m gone from The Post, but only as a journalist. Many people understandably have canceled subscriptions to protest Bezos’s actions that have damaged the news organization’s integrity. I still subscribe, and read and support the enduring fine work of Post journalists in the newspaper and digitally.
When Bezos bought The Post, he provided needed money, energy and direction. The Post continues to produce first rate journalism now, despite his morale-busting actions.
The Washington Post did not respond to TheWrap’s request for comment. The DailyBeast was first to report the news.
