
USA Today announced it will not endorse Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election, marking a significant departure from its support of Joe Biden in 2020. The newspaper, which is the fourth largest in the U.S., told The Daily Beast it would focus on offering readers “trusted information” rather than backing any specific candidate.
This non-endorsement decision aligns USA Today with The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times, which also refrained from endorsing Harris despite their traditionally liberal leanings. The New York Times, however, has endorsed Harris, though the Post and LA Times have experienced staff resignations and lost subscribers over the decision not to endorse.
BREAKING: USA Today joins The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times and will NOT endorse a candidate for president. Running for cover? They sense the end is near for propaganda news pic.twitter.com/SrzQ9t18Px
— The Conservative M. D. 🗨️🇺🇸 (@WarriorsForAll) October 29, 2024
USA Today spokesperson Lark-Marie Anton explained the paper’s approach: “We believe America’s future is decided locally—one race at a time.” Gannett, USA Today’s parent company, has also refrained from endorsing any presidential candidates but allows individual papers to support local contenders.
In 2020, USA Today broke its neutrality to endorse Biden, citing the risks they saw in a second Trump term. The editorial board had called Biden a “harbor of calm and competence” and urged voters to reject Trump. This year, however, USA Today seems less compelled to weigh in on Harris, signaling a shift back to neutrality.
NEWSPAPERS THAT ENDORSED BIDEN BUT NOT HARRIS
Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, USA Today
The Minnesota Star Tribune, Tampa Bay Times
All the Gannett, McClatchy, and Alden local papers
The list grow is growing! pic.twitter.com/VjlMSgHtGq— Brother Eric (@01IOTA) October 28, 2024
The choice to avoid an endorsement reflects USA Today’s strategy to remain neutral as the 2024 race intensifies, with major publications balancing their roles as sources of factual information amid a divisive political landscape. The decision shows a trend among prominent papers to distance themselves from presidential endorsements in favor of objective reporting.