An editorial shift at the NYT: Authoritarian institutional capture

An incoherent opinion defending the indefensible

Context

One astute observer of politics recently noticed that something strange seemed to be going on at the NYT (New York Times). The newspaper openly positions itself as pro-democracy and staunchly opposed to Trump and MAGA authoritarianism and corruption. Despite that public face, the observer pieced together information that led to an assessment that the NYT has undergone a major editorial shift. The shift constituted what the observer called "a retreat from pluralism and from the democratic purpose the NYT so recently claimed to defend".

That assessment was based on several congruent observations. One was that NYT reporting and editorializing about threats to democracy, the rule of law, civil liberties and the public interest generally from Trump and MAGA elites had shifted. There was an apparently intentional, strategic omission of context and facts readers needed to assess what was being reported. What the NYT left hidden was the scope and depth of MAGA authoritarianism. Instead of core facts needed to assess MAGA politics and actions, NYT reporting and commentary had degraded into superficial reporting of selected facts and MAGA propaganda without context or mention impacts on democracy or the public interest.

In essence, the argument is that the NYT and a lot of other national reporting and commentary frame Trump and MAGA authoritarianism in ways that normalize and justify what is clearly abnormal and unjustifiable.

The Trump administration has waged unprecedented lawfare against the NYT. Direct legal attacks include a $15 billion defamation lawsuit filed in Sept. 2025 over 2024 election coverage. However, it is unclear if the NYT shift results mostly from public threats that Trump and MAGA elites have leveled at the NYT, or if other factors dominate. Authoritarian capture of political discourse has become widespread and that could easily be a major factor in the NYT editorial and reporting changes. NYT journalists reported explicit pressure to avoid appearing biased, leading to both-sides framing even when one side openly defies democratic norms. There is fear at the NYT of (1) loss of access to news sources, and (2) being labeled partisan for accurately describing MAGA's authoritarian actions.

The NYT hasn't become pro-Trump or pro-authoritarian, at least not yet. But it is institutionally captured. Its commitment to "viewpoint diversity" now includes perspectives that, if implemented, would destroy the free press it claims to defend.

An incoherent opinion defending the indefensible

An NYT opinion by Sarah Isgur (not paywalled), senior editor at The Dispatch, argues that the USSC (US Supreme Court) knows what it is doing, and it is good. Her argument is pretty simple. To increase accountability of executive agencies, the USSC is merely rebalancing power among the branches of government. She asserts that this not just transferring power to a unitary executive with legal immunity for committing crimes while in office. A unitary executive is close to a dictator, since he is now legally above the law while in office. 

In her opinion Isgur also claims, incoherently, that the Founders would be "shocked" not by a presidency that has accumulated vast new powers, but by a Congress that has given up a lot of its power. She argues that congress has too little power. But in the same opinion she notes that the USSC is on the verge of giving the president a whole lot more power at the expense of congress. The case, Trump v. Slaughter, could decide the fate of dozens of independent administrative agencies and the president’s ability to control them.

Isgur denigrates members of congress like this:

They [the Founders] would be confused that so many of its more than 500 members seem to have no further ambition than to act like glorified Instagram influencers**.**  

That may be true to some extent, but not very much. That aside, how that justifies giving an already too powerful and corrupt but above the law president more power is clear as mud. Her NYT opinion claims to strengthen Congress but she directly proposes supporting the USSC to weaken it further by transferring congressional delegations to unlimited presidential control in Trump v. Slaughter.

Points for consideration

Does this opinion mostly amount to the NYT publishing legal arguments that sanitize authoritarian power grabs as constitutional theory, the Founder's intent or some other rationalization?

If Isgur is right that the Founders would be shocked at how wimpy congress has become, is it irrational for her to argue that the presidency needs more power, which would be taken from congress in the pending Trump v. Slaughter case? Do her arguments amount to a blatant contradiction that exposes intellectual dishonesty? Does that dishonesty extend to the NYT itself, or is the newspaper walled off from criticism by saying it's her opinion, not ours?