OPINION — My first thought after reading last Friday that The Washington Post would not continue a long-standing tradition of publishing an editorial supporting a candidate in the presidential election, was about just how complicated journalism and the nature of ‘trusted sources’ has become and how dangerous that can be for journalism writ large.
Having spent 40 years as a journalist and opinion columnist at The Washington Post before working at The Cipher Brief, I understand why the editorial side of respected newspapers (which is separate from the reporting side) chose to endorse candidates. The editorial side of the newsroom bears the responsibility to share informed opinions and what could be a more important focus than on who should hold the nation’s highest office?
The tradition of publishing an editorial endorsing a candidate has been questioned over the years by organizations like the Nieman Lab – a Harvard-affiliated program that studies the role of journalism in the age of the internet – which questioned whether the controversial tradition should continue. The decision to publish an editorial endorsement is one that is traditionally made by the newspaper’s owner or editorial board (generally composed of editorial page writers and editors and sometimes opinion columnists).
Sources have said that The Washington Post was preparing to publish its endorsement of presidential candidate Kamala Harris when owner Jeff Bezos made the decision to stop publishing presidential endorsements. Washington Post Editor-at-Large, Robert Kagan, resigned over the move that followed a similar decision by the owner of the Los Angeles Times. The Times decision prompted its editorial page editor and other members of its board to resign as well in protest.
Bezos has not offered comment as to why the decision was made, leaving room for speculation. What’s concerning when it comes to the independence and freedom of the press, is that he could have been reacting to a costly run-in that Amazon – a company he founded – had with the Trump Administration back in 2019.
Exactly five years ago last Friday, The Post published a story reporting that “The Pentagon awarded its controversial $10 billion cloud computing business to Microsoft…spurning a bid from Amazon, which had been expected to win the contract. President [Donald] Trump had expressed opposition to giving the lucrative award to a company led by Jeff Bezos, a regular target of his ire.”
At the time, the cloud computing contract known as Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI), was the military’s largest information technology contract award, but it was also expected to lead to other business across the federal government.
Ironically, the idea for JEDI was first floated in 2018, after then-Defense Secretary James Mattis visited Silicon Valley in 2017, visited with Bezos, and returned to Washington inspired to modernize the nation’s defense IT infrastructure. Following the meeting between Mattis and Bezos, Amazon cloud was considered the obvious front runner for the contract, which went out for bids in 2018.
The Post 2019 story went on, “The [JEDI award] announcement came after an intense lobbying effort and a lawsuit filed by some of America’s biggest tech companies, which accused the military of favoring Amazon in a process that has dragged on for more than a year. During that time, Trump and other administration officials made it clear they did not want the contract to go to Amazon. Federal acquisition laws forbid politicians, including the president, from influencing contract awards.”
But five years ago, Bezos fought back.
Amazon Web Services (AWS), Amazon’s cloud computing unit, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims protesting the contract award to Microsoft. The company argues that President Trump’s bias against Amazon and its CEO, Bezos, influenced the Pentagon to give the contract to Microsoft.
As part of its lawsuit, AWS sought to depose “individuals who were instrumental” in the JEDI source selection and “played pivotal roles” in the ultimate awarding of the contract, including Trump and Mattis.
At that time, an Amazon spokesperson told CNBC in a statement: “President Trump has repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to use his position as President and Commander in Chief to interfere with government functions – including federal procurements – to advance his personal agenda. The preservation of public confidence in the nation’s procurement process requires discovery and supplementation of the administrative record, particularly in light of President Trump’s order to ‘screw Amazon.’ The question is whether the President of the United States should be allowed to use the budget of the DoD to pursue his own personal and political ends.”
In 2020, when the Defense Department Inspector General investigated the JEDI contract, DoD investigators were unable to rule out whether the White House interfered with the contract award because DoD’s general counsel instructed senior DoD witnesses not to verbally answer questions about communications between the White House and Pentagon because of “the assertion of a ‘presidential communications privilege.’”
In July 2021, under the Biden administration, DoD announced that JEDI “no longer meets its [DoD’s] needs,” but it said it would solicit bids from Amazon and Microsoft on future cloud-computing contracts, putting to an end to almost two years of legal wrangling and dueling technology claims over what many considered to be the marquee contract for providing cloud-computing services to the federal government.
In December 2022, DoD announced cloud-computing contracts to four companies: Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Oracle that run through 2028 and could be valued as high as $9 billion.
Meanwhile, AWS continues to win major government contracts including with CIA, the National Security Agency and the Navy. Amazon’s Project Kuiper’s planned network of over 3,000 broadband satellites, in April 2022 was awarded a $67 million NASA contract.
In 2023, Bezos’ space company Blue Origin won a NASA contract worth nearly $3 billion to develop a Lunar Lander for Artemis V – a mission planned to take astronauts to the moon in 2029.
It’s obvious that Bezos’ financial exposure to a potential new Trump administration is substantial.
Let’s also not forget that back in 2018, then-President Trump went after Bezos saying his Amazon company did not pay enough sales tax and was using the United States Postal Service as its “Delivery Boy.”
Trump was angered by negative stories about him in The Washington Post and other newspapers and even as he campaigns for the office again, he is threatening the media and their owners with retribution for printing things he does not like.
At a 2016 rally, Trump made comments focused specifically on Bezos and Amazon saying, “If I become President, oh do they have problems. They’re going to have such problems.”
As a former Post reporter and columnist, and a friend of the Graham family, which sold the Post to Bezos in 2013, I find the statement issued to justify not publishing an editorial in support of a Presidential candidate in what’s recognized as the most significant election in decades, disturbing at best.
Washington Post Publisher William Lewis, in a statement last week, “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. That is inevitable,” Lewis wrote. “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.” Lewis said the decision was also a “statement in support of our readers’ ability to make up their own minds.”
Lewis’ justification makes a farce out of all that The Washington Post has stood for over decades, not just in its opinion pages, but in its news columns as well. Its editorial team has earned the right, as a trusted source, to make an endorsement of a presidential candidate.
While publishing stories on alleged government corruption or Trump’s increasingly erratic language or Kamala Harris’ ducking of questions on difficult issues, could be considered biased or taking sides, that kind of honest reporting is what makes a source like The Washington Post trustworthy. The paper is proud of its tradition of calling it like it sees it and telling the readers why.
Former Post Executive Editor Marty Baron, on X said of the Lewis statement: “This is cowardice, with democracy as its casualty. Donald Trump will see this as an invitation to further intimidate owner Bezos (and others).” Baron added, “Disturbing spinelessness at an institution famed for courage.”
I agree. But just as important to me is the question of what happened to the Jeff Bezos of five years ago, who fought back against an out-of-line President Trump? And what happens if future owners of media organizations are afraid to fight back?
The Cipher Brief is committed to publishing a range of perspectives on national security issues submitted by deeply experienced national security professionals. Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of The Cipher Brief.
Have a perspective to share based on your experience in the national security field? Send it to [email protected] for publication consideration.
Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief
