Robert Kagan, the Washington Post's editor-at-large, has resigned. 

This, according to Breitbart News, comes in response to the paper's refusal to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election.

It would be an understatement to say that many on the left are furious at the Post for the non-endorsement.

And some, like Kagan, are so upset that they have parted ways with the Post. 

Here is what we know:

It is Max Tani, a media editor for Semafor, who revealed that Kagan has called it quits.

In a message posted to his X account, Tani wrote:

Scoop: Washington Post editor at large Robert Kagan confirms to me that he resigned from the Post following today's decision not to endorse in the presidential race.

This came after Tani previously revealed that Post employees are "furious" about the paper's refusal to endorse Harris.

Tani wrote:

Opinion staff at WaPo are furious about the paper's endorsement decision. Several are contemplating what action to take, ranging from resigning, quitting the board, or a statement. "If you don't have the balls to own a newspaper, don't," one Post opinion employee tells me.

Kagan would obviously fall into the "resigning" category.

Background

Reports indicate that it was the Post's owner, Jeff Bezos, who made the decision not to endorse Harris - despite the fact that the Post is well-known for its far-left bias.

William Lewis, the Post's publisher and chief executive officer, 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.

This is the first time in nearly 40 years that the Post is not endorsing a candidate in a presidential election. Lewis attempted to explain Bezos's decision by referencing something the Post wrote in 1960.

Here is the relevant passage:

The Washington Post has not ‘endorsed’ either candidate in the presidential campaign. That is in our tradition and accords with our action in five of the last six elections. The unusual circumstances of the 1952 election led us to make an exception when we endorsed General Eisenhower prior to the nominating conventions and reiterated our endorsement during the campaign. In the light of hindsight we retain the view that the arguments for his nomination and election were compelling. But hindsight also has convinced us that it might have been wiser for an independent newspaper in the Nation’s Capital to have avoided formal endorsement.

This, however, is obviously not good enough for Kagan and other Post employees - or former employees.