The Washington Post said Friday that it will not endorse a candidate in the presidential election this year — or ever again — breaking decades of tradition and sparking immediate criticism of the decision.

But the newspaper also published an article by two staff reporters revealing that editorial page staffers had drafted an endorsement of Democratic nominee Kamala Harris over GOP nominee Donald Trump in the election.

“The decision not to publish was made by The Post’s owner — Amazon founder Jeff Bezos,” the article said, citing two sources briefed on the events.

Trump, while president, had been critical of the billionaire Bezos and the Post, which he purchased in 2013.

The newspaper in 2016 and again in 2020 endorsed Trump’s election opponents, Hillary Clinton and President Joe Biden, in editorials that condemned the Republican in blunt terms.

In a 2019 lawsuit, Amazon claimed it had lost a $10 billion cloud computing contract with the Pentagon to Microsoft because Trump had used “improper pressure … to harm his perceived political enemy” Bezos.

The Post since 1976 had regularly endorsed candidates for president, except for the 1988 race. All those endorsements had been for Democrats.

In a statement to CNBC, when asked about Bezos’ purported role in killing the endorsement, Post chief communications officer Kathy Baird said, “This was a Washington Post decision to not endorse, and I would refer you to the publisher’s statement in full.”

The Post on Friday evening published a third article, signed by opinion columnists for the newspaper, who said, “The Washington Post’s decision not to make an endorsement in the presidential campaign is a terrible mistake.”

“It represents an abandonment of the fundamental editorial convictions of the newspaper that we love, and for which we have worked a combined 218 years,” the column said. “This is a moment for the institution to be making clear its commitment to democratic values, the rule of law and international alliances, and the threat that Donald Trump poses to them — the precise points The Post made in endorsing Trump’s opponents in 2016 and 2020.”

CNBC has requested comment from Amazon, where Bezos remains the largest shareholder.

Post publisher and chief executive Will Lewis, in an article published online explaining the decision, wrote, “The Washington Post will not be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate in this election. Nor in any future presidential election.”

“We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates,” Lewis wrote.

“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,” he wrote.

“That is inevitable. 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.”

Seven of the 13 paragraphs of Lewis’ article either quoted at length or referred to Post Editorial Board statements in 1960 and 1972 explaining the paper’s rationale for not endorsing presidential candidates in those years, which included its identity as “an independent newspaper.”

Lewis noted that the paper had endorsed Jimmy Carter in 1976 “for understandable reasons at the times” — which he did not identify.

“But we had it right before that, and this is what we are going back to,” Lewis wrote.

“Our job as the newspaper of the capital city of the most important country in the world is to be independent,” he wrote. “And that is what we are and will be.”

Post editor-at-large Robert Kagan, a member of the paper’s opinions section, resigned following the decision, multiple news outlets reported.

More than 10,000 reader comments were posted on Lewis’ article, many of them blasting the Post for its decision and saying they were canceling their subscriptions.

“The most consequential election in our country, a choice between Fascism and Democracy, and you sit out? Cowards. Unethical, fearful cowards,” wrote one comment. “Oh, and by the way, I’m canceling my subscription, because you are putting business ahead of ethics and morals.”

The announcement came days after Mariel Garza, the head of The Los Angeles Times‘ editorial board, resigned in protest after that paper’s owner, Patrick Soon-Shiong, decided against running a presidential endorsement.

“I am resigning because I want to make it clear that I am not okay with us being silent,” Garza told the Columbia Journalism Review. “In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up. This is how I’m standing up.”

Soon-Shiong, like Bezos, is a billionaire.

Marty Baron, the former editor of The Washington Post, called that paper’s decision “cowardice, with democracy as its casualty.”

″@realdonaldtrump will see this as an invitation to further intimidate owner @jeffbezos (and others),” Baron wrote. “Disturbing spinelessness at an institution famed for courage.”

The Washington Post Guild, the union that represents the newspaper’s staff, in a statement posted on the social media site X said it was “deeply concerned that The Washington Post — an American news institution in the nation’s capital — would make a decision to no longer endorse presidential candidates, especially a mere 11 days ahead of an immensely consequential election.”

“The message from our chief executive, Will Lewis — not from the Editorial Board itself — makes us concerned that management interfered with the work of our members in Editorial,” the Guild said in the statement, which noted the paper’s reporting about Bezos’ role in the decision.

“We are already seeing cancellations from once loyal readers,” the Guild said. “This decision undercuts the work of our members at a time when we should be building our readers’ trust, not losing it.”

Former Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, whose stories about the Watergate break-in during the Nixon administration won the newspaper a Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, in a statement said, “We respect the traditional independence of the editorial page, but this decision 11 days out from the 2024 presidential election ignores the Washington Post’s own overwhelming reportorial evidence on the threat Donald Trump poses to democracy.”

“Under Jeff Bezos’s ownership, the Washington Post’s news operation has used its abundant resources to rigorously investigate the danger and damage a second Trump presidency could cause to the future of American democracy and that makes this decision even more surprising and disappointing, especially this late in the electoral process,” Woodward and Bernstein said.

Post columnist Karen Attiah, in a post on the social media site Threads, wrote, “Today has been an absolute stab in the back.”

“What an insult to those of us who have literally put our careers and lives on the line to call out threats to human rights and democracy,” Attiah wrote.

Rep. Ted Lieu, a Democrat from California, in his own tweet on the news wrote, “The first step towards fascism is when the free press cowers in fear.”

Trump in August told Fox Business News that Bezos called him after the Republican narrowly escaped an assassination attempt in July at a campaign rally in western Pennsylvania.

“He was very nice even though he owns The Washington Post,” Trump said of Bezos.

Bezos last posted on X on July 13, hours after the assassination attempt.

“Our former President showed tremendous grace and courage under literal fire tonight,” Bezos wrote in that tweet. “So thankful for his safety and so sad for the victims and their families.”

Trump on Friday met in Austin, Texas, with executives from the Bezos-owned space exploration company Blue Origin, among them CEO David Limp, the Associated Press reported

Dave Limp had only one question for Jeff Bezos when he interviewed last year to become CEO of Blue Origin, the billionaire’s space venture.

“Jeff, is Blue Origin a hobby or a business?” Limp asked.

After 14 years as a senior Amazon executive, Limp told CNBC he made it clear to Bezos that he wasn’t interested in leading Blue Origin if the nearly 25-year-old venture wasn’t intended to be a serious company.

“I don’t know how to run a hobby,” Limp said, adding that “if it was a hobby, it’s not right for me.”

But he said Bezos was adamant that Blue Origin needed to be a business.

Limp admitted that it took some convincing from Bezos for him to make the move over to the space sector. “My initial reaction was: It’s not the right role for me because I’m not an aerospace engineer,” he said. But he decided to take the leap of faith.

“Jeff felt that [Blue Origin] needed manufacturing expertise; it needed decisiveness; it need a little bit of energy,” Limp said.

Limp has now been the CEO of Blue Origin for nine months and counting. He took the reins from prior leadership who had widely expanded the company’s workforce and infrastructure but had fallen years behind on several major programs and lost competitions for key government contracts.

Blue Origin for years has been flying tourists and research to the edge of space on short jaunts, including Bezos himself. And over the past two decades, Bezos has been spending billions of dollars a year to turn Blue Origin into a space sector powerhouse. The company’s projects reach from rockets and spacecraft to space stations and lunar landers.

Yet in the industry table stakes of orbital missions, Blue Origin has not entered the serious rocketry game, as the U.S. launch market remains dominated by SpaceX, followed by United Launch Alliance, Rocket Lab and Firefly Aerospace.

But the company said it’s closer than ever to the long-awaited debut of its New Glenn rocket. Towering about 320 feet tall, the launch vehicle is advertised as lifting as much as 45,000 kilograms (or over 99,000 pounds) to low Earth orbit — double that of SpaceX’s workhorse Falcon 9 rocket.

Like Falcon 9, New Glenn is designed to be partly reusable. Blue Origin aims to return and land the rocket’s booster, its largest and most valuable section, to unlock the kind of cost and time efficiencies that SpaceX claims with its rockets.

New Glenn’s first launch attempt is slated for November. Blue Origin is in the final stages of putting it all together, including conducting a recent crucial test firing of the rocket’s upper stage last month.

Originally the company was aiming for the audacious feat of flying NASA’s ESCAPADE mission to Mars on New Glenn’s debut. But with a dwindling launch window, the agency delayed ESCAPADE to a later launch. In the mission’s place, Blue Origin will fly a demonstration of its spacecraft Blue Ring on the first New Glenn launch.