The Washington Post labeled Trump as "dreadful" and the "worst president of modern times" prior to making a non-endorsement decision.

The Washington Post editorial board has not endorsed a Republican for president in the past 50 years, and it is not doing so this cycle. However, the fact that it is not endorsing Kamala Harris has caused another uproar at an elite media institution.

"According to longtime Post media writer Paul Farhi, the winner of the election will be sitting down the street from The Washington Post. Farhi told Planet Chronicle Digital that it's strange that they would back off from their opinion on the matter, given that everyone has an opinion about it."

The paper's recent history and coverage of Trump clearly indicate its stance on the GOP standard-bearer, labeling him the worst president in modern history and calling for his removal from office following the January 6 Capitol riot.

The Post announced on Friday that it would not be endorsing a candidate in the upcoming presidential election or any future one, marking a return to its roots. Since 1976, the Post has consistently endorsed Democrats for president, with the exception of 1988. Similarly, the Los Angeles Times made headlines this month by deciding not to endorse a candidate for president, despite its clear opposition to Trump.

If the Post had made its announcement a year earlier, it may not have caused as much controversy. However, with the election just 11 days away and after years of criticizing Trump as unfit and a disgrace, the paper's decision sparked intense anger among its staff and former prominent contributors.

At least two members of the Post's staff have resigned, and 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.

The union of the paper expressed concern that management was interfering with independent journalism because of reports that Bezos, the owner of the Post, had forced the move due to the possibility of Trump's return to power.

The paper's editorials made it clear that they support the 45th president and who should be the 47th.

Recently, it has been said that Trump's "insidious" rhetoric in interviews and rallies was criticized on Oct. 12. On Sept. 11, it was stated that he lost his debate to Kamala Harris on "tone and substance." It is reported that in recent months, he has governed chaotically, and it is clear that Harris is better when comparing the two candidates. Additionally, it was noted that he had a "reservoir of grievance" at his Republican nomination acceptance speech.

The Post earlier this year argued that Joe Biden, the then-presumptive Democratic nominee, had an "extreme agenda" and was "unpredictable" and "outright dangerous," fearing he could lose the race and be replaced by Kamala Harris.

The Post has consistently criticized Trump, labeling him "dreadful" and "uniquely unqualified" in 2016 and referring to him as "the worst president of modern times" in 2020.

In 2023, Farhi, who had been with the Post for 35 years, was among those who were perplexed by the reasoning behind not endorsing a candidate whose values aligned with the newspaper's, even though it wouldn't sway voters.

"If the Post, like the New York Times, had endorsed Harris, as it seemed they were planning to do until Bezos intervened, would anyone care? No one would care because it's expected that the Post won't endorse Trump, so if they endorsed Harris, it wouldn't be a big deal. It's just confusing to me why this is being given so much attention."

The Washington Post has been closely scrutinizing Trump's rhetoric, policies, scandals, and business dealings for years, as evidenced by its investigative reporting. The paper's slogan, "Democracy Dies in Darkness," was adopted in 2017, although the paper denied it was a direct response to Trump.

Why would an endorsement from The Post trigger Trump, given its extensive history of investigating Trump and publishing editorials about his behavior and record in office?

The Post has not fully endorsed Harris, criticizing her earlier this year for her "gimmicks" on the economy and raising questions about her frequent policy shifts since her unsuccessful 2020 primary campaign.

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.

"On Friday, left-wing Post columnist Karen Attiah wrote that today has been a betrayal to those who have risked their careers and lives to fight for human rights and democracy."