Weather 
New York
Gannett, owner of the nation’s largest newspaper chain, announced that its more than 200 publications, including USA Today, will not publish presidential endorsements in the run-up to the November 5 election.
In a statement, Gannett said that while its USA Today Network of publications nationwide will not issue presidential endorsements this year, the outlets may still endorse candidates at the state and local levels at their own discretion.
“Why are we doing this? Because we believe America’s future is decided locally – one race at a time,” Gannett chief communications officer Lark-Marie Antón told in a statement. “And with more than 200 publications across the nation, our public service is to provide readers with the facts that matter and the trusted information they need to make informed decisions.”
The decision not to endorse was made last year by Gannett Media chief content officer Kristin Roberts, a person familiar with the matter said. Roberts determined that Gannett Media, which is comprised of USA Today and the USA Today Network, would not pursue endorsements at the national level, a decision Gannett Media newsrooms were informed of but which the company decided to not share in a statement at the time, the person told .
“This was an editorial decision, it had nothing to do with Gannett corporate,” Antón told . “The perception that our corporate team influenced editorial is not accurate.”
Gannett Media’s nationwide network of publications including The Arizona Republic, northjersey.com, The Tennessean, and Detroit Free Press boast two million paid digital-only subscribers with an average daily print readership of 2.9 million Monday through Saturday across 43 states.
The newspapers aren’t alone in declining to publish presidential endorsement in the 2024 race. Last week, the Los Angeles Times announced it would not publish a planned endorsement of Kamala Harris, a move that was followed by The Washington Post on Friday. Both the Times’ and the Post’s announcements were followed by a wave of staff resignations and thousands of readers canceling their subscriptions.
In 2016, USA Today published its first-ever anti-endorsement since its founding in 1982, calling Donald Trump “unfit for office.” The endorsement, however, did not “represent unqualified support for Hillary Clinton” given the board did “not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement.” Still, the op-ed noted that “because every presidential race is different, we revisit our no-endorsement policy every four years.”
“We’ve never seen reason to alter our approach,” the editorial board wrote at the time. “Until now.”
In 2020, USA Today again broke with its own tradition, this time offering its first full-throated endorsement for Joe Biden’s candidacy.
“Now, two weeks until Election Day, we suggest you consider a variation of the question Republican Ronald Reagan asked voters when he ran for president in 1980: Is America better off now than it was four years ago?” the editorial board asked.
News of USA Today’s decision to no longer endorse in the presidential election was met with some pushback.
David Mastio, who was part of the USA Today opinion team that published the 2020 endorsement of Biden, called the decision deeply disappointing.
“If this were a choice between two capable major party nominees who happened to have opposing ideas, we wouldn’t choose sides. Different voters have different concerns,” Mastio said in a post on X, quoting from the 2016 opinion piece. “But this is not a normal election, and these are not normal times. This year, character, competence and credibility are on the ballot. Given Trump’s refusal to guarantee a peaceful transfer of power if he loses, so, too, is the future of America’s democracy.”
“That remains true today,” Mastio said. “I am deeply disappointed that USA TODAY has lost its voice at this critical time for our country.”
