The Washington Post editorial board faced sharp criticism on Wednesday after publishing an opinion piece that critics said misrepresented key aspects of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
In the editorial, the board argued that Smith had gone too far by requesting the phone records of several U.S. senators as part of his inquiry, describing the move as “hardball” tactics. The editors suggested that while the action may have been legally permissible, it was not appropriate.
“But the mere fact that a legal tool might be available does not mean it should be used,” the editorial stated. “The current rage over Grassley’s revelation shows why. Smith showed little restraint in his pursuit of a presidency. He charged Trump with official acts he took as president. He sought a gag order to limit Trump’s ability to criticize the prosecution.
He tried to accelerate the case to try a leading presidential candidate before the 2024 election.” The piece immediately sparked a wave of backlash from journalists, legal analysts, and media observers who accused the paper of distorting Smith’s actions and creating false equivalencies. “I spent more than a decade at The Post.
It was good to me and I was proud to work there,” Post columnist Philip Bump wrote on Bluesky. “I’ve largely refrained from being critical since I left. But this framing of the special counsel probe is embarrassing and flatly wrong. Stunning, but not.” Quinta Jurecic, a journalist with The Atlantic, also expressed frustration.
“I wrote legal editorials for the Post for a hot minute many years ago, and I was constantly anxious about making sure I got the details right,” she posted. “This editorial is just humiliating for everyone involved.” Other media figures echoed similar sentiments. Journalist John Haywood wrote on X, “So Jeff Bezos and Will Lewis really are turning the Washington Post into garbage.”
Brian Rosenwald added, “My god, the lede on this editorial is embarrassing. Kay Graham is rolling in her grave.” Anna Bower, senior editor at Lawfare, called the editorial misleading. “This WaPo editorial presents a misleading revisionist history of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s criminal cases against Trump,” she posted. “Then it has the gall to compare that to Trump’s overt targeting of his perceived enemies. Really embarrassing stuff.”
Public policy professor Don Moynihan also criticized the editorial, saying it blurred the distinction between accountability and retaliation. “Jack Smith was investigating Trump’s efforts to overturn the election, and Trump is now prosecuting the former FBI head to settle scores,” he wrote. “Apparently, these are equally bad, and Smith caused Trump’s retribution spree.” The Washington Post has not responded publicly to the criticism.