Explained: Why The Washington Post Laid Off a Third of Its Staff

The Washington Post has laid off roughly a third of its staff, gutting global coverage and iconic desks—triggering grief, anger and a broader reckoning over the future of legacy journalism.

What exactly did The Washington Post do?

The Washington Post has announced sweeping layoffs affecting about one-third of its workforce across departments, not just the newsroom.

The cuts include elimination of the sports section, closure of the books department, shutting down several foreign bureaus, suspension of the Post Reports podcast and major reductions in international, metro and editing teams. Staff began receiving emails informing them whether their roles had been eliminated, marking one of the largest single-day purges in the paper’s history.

Which parts of the newsroom were hit the hardest?

The layoffs disproportionately affected international reporting. Entire teams were cut, including The Middle East bureau, journalists based in Delhi, Beijing, Kyiv, Berlin and Latin America and correspondents reporting from active war zones. Sports journalism—long a pillar of the Post’s identity—was completely dismantled, ending a department that once hosted bylines like Sally Jenkins, Michael Wilbon and Tony Kornheiser.

What about Ishaan Tharoor and why is his exit being closely watched?

Among those affected by the layoffs is Ishaan Tharoor, a prominent global affairs columnist at The Washington Post and the son of Indian politician and author Shashi Tharoor. Ishaan Tharoor was best known for his widely read column “Today’s WorldView,” which offered sharp, accessible analysis of geopolitics, conflict and international power shifts. His work helped bridge complex global issues for a broad, international readership—precisely the kind of journalism critics say is being hollowed out by the cuts. For many observers, Tharoor’s exit has become emblematic of the broader loss: not just jobs, but voices that helped contextualise the world beyond Washington.

How did journalists respond?

With grief and fury. Veteran correspondents took to social media to share sombre messages. Some wrote of being laid off while reporting from war zones. Others described the newsroom as “empty” and the day as “heartbreaking”. Former Executive Editor Mary Baron called it “one of the darkest days in the history of one of the world’s greatest news organisations.” Journalists across the industry echoed that sentiment, calling the cuts a brutal blow to journalism itself, not just one newsroom.

What explanation did the Post’s leadership give?

Executive Editor Matt Murray described the layoffs as “painful but necessary”, saying the paper must adapt to changing reader habits, technology shifts and falling output and engagement. “We can’t be everything to everyone,” Murray told staff, outlining a strategy to focus on fewer areas of authority such as politics, national affairs and security.

Why is owner Jeff Bezos at the centre of the backlash?

Because he has been largely silent. Jeff Bezos, who owns the Post through Nash Holdings, has faced growing criticism from journalists, former editors, readers and The Washington Post Guild. The union urged the public to message Bezos directly, saying: “Without the staff of The Washington Post, there is no Washington Post.” Former editor Martin Baron accused Bezos of presiding over “near-instant, self-inflicted brand destruction”, pointing to editorial decisions—including pulling back from political endorsements—that allegedly alienated loyal readers.

Is this just about one newspaper struggling?

No. But the Post’s fall is unusually stark. While the Post has reportedly lost hundreds of thousands of subscribers, its rival The New York Times has expanded, doubling its newsroom and investing in products like games and The Athletic. Media critics say the contrast exposes strategic failures, not just market pressures.

What does this mean for journalism more broadly?

The cuts have reignited a central fear: When global reporting shrinks, democracy weakens. Former US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the layoffs part of a “reprehensible pattern” of corporate decisions hollowing out newsrooms, warning that “when the press is starved, the republic is weakened.” For many journalists, the concern is not only job loss but the disappearance of ground-level, fact-based international reporting at a moment when it is most needed.

What happens next for The Washington Post?

The Post says it aims to “grow and thrive again” with a leaner structure and sharper focus. But the deeper question remains unanswered: Can a newspaper that once defined investigative courage—from Watergate to war reporting—retain its global authority after cutting the very teams that built that legacy? For now, the newsroom mourns.

(With inputs from ANI)