Jeff Bezos made some significant changes at The Washington Post, most notably to the Opinion Page. The first real signal of what was coming was his decision to quash the Post's endorsement of Kamala Harris in the election, which led to an inexorable exodus from the top echelons of the paper. 

He instituted buyouts, and made clear that paper would no longer be laser-focused on being a shill for the Democrats and their further left-wing allies. He announced to the world that the Post was moving in a new direction, and the big question became whether that was possible, and how much things would change. 

I shared this note with the Washington Post team this morning:

I’m writing to let you know about a change coming to our opinion pages.

We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets. We’ll cover other topics too…

— Jeff Bezos (@JeffBezos) February 26, 2025

I shared this note with the Washington Post team this morning:

I’m writing to let you know about a change coming to our opinion pages. 

We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets. We’ll cover other topics too of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others. 

There was a time when a newspaper, especially one that was a local monopoly, might have seen it as a service to bring to the reader’s doorstep every morning a broad-based opinion section that sought to cover all views. Today, the internet does that job. 

I am of America and for America, and proud to be so. Our country did not get here by being typical. And a big part of America’s success has been freedom in the economic realm and everywhere else. Freedom is ethical — it minimizes coercion — and practical — it drives creativity, invention, and prosperity. 

I offered David Shipley, whom I greatly admire, the opportunity to lead this new chapter. I suggested to him that if the answer wasn’t “hell yes,” then it had to be “no.” After careful consideration, David decided to step away. This is a significant shift, it won’t be easy, and it will require 100% commitment —  I respect his decision. We’ll be searching for a new Opinion Editor to own this new direction.

I’m confident that free markets and personal liberties are right for America. I also believe these viewpoints are underserved in the current market of ideas and news opinion. I’m excited for us together to fill that void. 

Jeff

The answer appears to be that it was possible, and Bezos was serious about guiding the paper in a new direction. The extent to which this shift will be successful in the long term cannot, obviously, be known yet. The paper is in serious financial difficulties and is essentially a charity project of Bezos. Although there is no deep well of dedicated journalists who are not partisans, it's clear that so far, Bezos' efforts are yielding results. 

WaPo editorial: “Seattle’s coming socialist experiment” https://t.co/YuQYRpZP8l

— Josh Kraushaar (@JoshKraushaar) November 17, 2025

It's not that the Post has become MAGA by any stretch of the imagination, although it certainly is no longer reflexively anti-Trump. Many people, including me to some extent, were surprised to see the Post Editorial defending the White House ballroom amid the Democratic freakout. 

Washington Post lead editorial in Sunday’s newspaper is a defense of the White House ballroom. https://t.co/1Xm0g85Dp4

— James Hohmann (@jameshohmann) October 25, 2025

It's not exactly difficult to defend the construction of the ballroom, of course. No sane person honestly believes that state dinners should be held in a tent, or that foreign diplomats and leaders should be forced to use chemical toilets at such events. Even Obama officials privately admitted that the ballroom was a good idea. 

But it was still notable that the Post actually SAID so, given that it undermined a Democratic Party talking point. Doing so was not unique in its history, but it was more than a little unusual, especially when it required agreeing with Bad Orange Man. 

Zohran Mamdani’s success is a warning, the Editorial Board writes. https://t.co/mX4q5pjA4s

— Washington Post Opinions (@PostOpinions) November 3, 2025

Of course, breaking with the Democrats on the ballroom was hardly earth-shattering. The issue was always a tempest in a teapot, and Democrats were pouncing and seizing to distract from their shutdown failures. 

What's more significant is the fact that the Post is taking on the left, if not the Democrats per se. 

Zohran Mamdani drops the mask, the Editorial Board writes.

“Witness the mayor-elect’s change of character since his Tuesday election victory.” https://t.co/PMIPQqH696

— Washington Post Opinions (@PostOpinions) November 8, 2025

Now, one could argue that as the voice of the Democratic Party establishment, the Post's arguments benefit the establishmentarians who are engaged in a losing battle with the socialists, and that argument is correct on its own. The left has grown in power and is eating away at the cozy relationships and lifestyles of the liberal and powerful. 

California’s wealth-tax test https://t.co/xpPGOqPUMQ

— James Hohmann (@jameshohmann) November 17, 2025

So the now consistent pattern of attacking the socialists is not bashing their allies—it really would be shocking to see that, if for no other reason than the fact that the Post needs to maintain its own cozy relationships with the establishment to keep cranking out stories daily. For all the talk of "holding government accountable," the fact is that establishment news sources often depend on friendly relationships with those in power. 

Any story has to be Pulitzer-worthy to get reporters and Editorial Page-types to bite the hand that feeds them. 

"Under Weingarten’s presidency, the American Federation of Teachers has reduced the intellectual level of its publications," Williamson M. Evers writes. https://t.co/j4DrOtXW4M

— Washington Post Opinions (@PostOpinions) November 17, 2025

Still, the drift to the center appears to be more than just catering to the establishment on the left and opening up ideological distance from the far left. There really does seem to be some new appreciation of the virtues of freedom and free markets. 

What does this mean in practical terms? Both less and more than we might think. Editorial pages have very little influence outside a very small circle. Ask any newspaper editor how influential their endorsements are, and you will get a chuckle. Few votes are moved, shall we say. 

On the other hand, such pages do help set the Overton Window among the elite, and that matters more than you think. They help frame debates in many circles that matter. Voters may not care, but people who influence policy generally do. 

And, for those of us in the conservative intellectual circles, it means something else: we should actually pay attention to what they write. Not because we are more likely to agree with them before—they will likely still favor establishment views—but because we can't assume bad faith all the time on their part. They may actually have something to say about an issue that should be considered. 

Staying within our bubbles is dangerous for a lot of reasons, so it is important to find alternative voices to consider. Unfortunately, most things said in politics are said in bad faith. It is spin. So finding a source outside your bubble that isn't pure dreck is hard. 

Could the Washington Post Editorial Page become such a source? Perhaps. 

If so, that is reason enough to be glad that they are shifting toward the center. If, every once in a while, you walk away thinking, "Hmm, they may have a point," that would be a cause for celebration. It's what makes The Free Press so invaluable. 

Anything that makes us examine our assumptions is invaluable. I hope the Washington Post will add a voice worth considering to the debate. 

Join Hot Air VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.