Journalism is weird. One day you’re the bedrock of a national institution, and the next, you’re hitting "send" on a resignation email that ends a 40-year career. That’s basically the short version of the Ruth Marcus Washington Post resignation.
But honestly, the short version doesn't do it justice.
Marcus wasn't just another writer. She was the Deputy Editorial Page Editor and a Pulitzer finalist who had been at the Post since 1984. She survived the transition from the Graham family to Jeff Bezos. She survived the chaotic Trump years. But she couldn’t survive a spiked column.
On March 10, 2025, Marcus walked away. She didn't leave because she was tired or because she found a better gig. She left because the paper's CEO, Will Lewis, refused to publish an opinion piece she wrote that was critical of Bezos himself.
It was the first time in 20 years of column-writing that she’d had a piece killed. That's a long time.
👉 See also: Panama President Rules Out Talks With Rubio on Panama Canal: The Sovereignty Stand Nobody Expected
The Column That Never Was (Until It Was)
The drama really started when Jeff Bezos decided to pivot the Post’s Opinion section toward what he called "personal liberties and free markets." Sounds harmless enough, right? Except, in the context of the Washington Post, it felt like a gag order to a lot of the veterans there.
Marcus wrote a column "respectfully dissenting" from this new edict. She wasn’t trying to be a firebrand. In fact, when she eventually published the "spiked" piece in The New Yorker two days later, she admitted it was "meek to the point of embarrassing." She just wanted to go on the record saying she disagreed with the owner’s vision.
Will Lewis said no.
Not only did he say no, but he reportedly refused to even meet with her to discuss it. When you’ve given 40 years of your life to a place, that’s gotta sting. Lewis told an editor to tell Marcus that "his decision was final."
Talk about a cold shoulder.
Why This Resignation Actually Matters
You might think, okay, one columnist left a big paper, so what? But the Ruth Marcus Washington Post resignation was the tipping point. It followed a string of high-profile exits:
- David Shipley, the Opinion editor, had already bailed.
- Robert Kagan, a long-time editor-at-large, quit after the paper famously blocked an endorsement of Kamala Harris in late 2024.
- Michele Norris, another heavy hitter, resigned over that same endorsement fiasco.
The Post was already bleeding. It lost something like 200,000 subscribers after the non-endorsement. People were already asking if Bezos was "pre-emptively cringing" before a potential second Trump term. Marcus’s exit confirmed the fears of the staff: the "separation of church and state" (news vs. ownership) was crumbling.
Marcus wrote in her resignation letter that the new policy "threatens to break the trust of readers." She worried that people would start thinking columnists were just writing what the owner deemed acceptable, rather than what they actually believed.
📖 Related: Why The Westerly Sun News Still Matters in a Digital World
And she’s not wrong. Once readers think a writer is a puppet, the game is over.
The "Speculative" Excuse
The paper’s official reason for killing the column was that it was "too speculative." They argued that since a new opinion editor hadn’t been named yet, Marcus couldn't possibly know how the "free markets" pillar would affect the section.
Marcus called BS.
She argued that when the billionaire owner of the paper announces a major shift in direction, you take him at his word. You don't wait three months to see if he was kidding.
What This Means for the Future of the Post
The Washington Post is in a weird spot. On one hand, it’s still one of the best newsrooms in the world. On the other, the Opinion side is looking a lot more like a corporate pamphlet than a town square.
The Ruth Marcus Washington Post resignation wasn't just about one woman's career. It was a warning shot. When the "bedrock" of the paper leaves because she can't voice a polite disagreement, the foundation is clearly cracked.
If you're following this, here are the real-world takeaways you should keep in mind:
- Watch where the talent goes. Marcus moved her voice to The New Yorker almost immediately. Keep an eye on where other Post alumni like Jen Rubin or Erik Wemple (whose column was also reportedly spiked) end up.
- Read between the lines. When a news organization starts emphasizing "neutrality" or "pillars," it often means they are narrowing the scope of what's allowed.
- Support independent journalism. Whether it's through Substack or smaller outlets, the best way to ensure writers aren't being "spiked" is to follow them directly.
The Post will likely survive, but the version of it that Ruth Marcus helped build for 40 years? That might be gone for good.
Actionable Next Steps: If you want to see the actual content that caused all the fuss, go read Ruth Marcus's essay "Why I Left the Washington Post" in The New Yorker. It includes the original "spiked" column so you can judge for yourself if it was truly "too speculative" or if the Post management was just playing defense for their boss.