Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capeheart quits editorial board over dispute with white colleague: ‘Robbing me of my humanity'
A black Washington Post opinion writer said he quit the newspaper's editorial board over a dispute with a white colleague about a piece concerning Georgia's voting laws that he didn't agree with — accusing her of 'robbing me of my humanity,' according to a report.
Jonathan Capehart, who was the only African American member of the editorial board when he quit in 2023, writes in a new book titled 'Yet Here I Am: Lessons from a Black Man's Search for Home,' that he stepped down over a dispute with another opinion editor, Karen Tumulty, the news site Semafor reported.
In his book, Capehart, who remains a columnist at the paper, writes that he clashed with Tumulty over an editorial which took issue with then-President Joe Biden's criticism of a 2021 Georgia voting law.
Biden described the law as 'Jim Crow 2.0' — a characterization that the Washington Post editorial board deemed to be 'hyperbolic.'
That didn't sit well with Capehart, who agreed with Biden's view of the law and was upset that the editorial may make it appear as if he supported the board's position that it was 'hyperbolic,' according to Semafor.
According to the book, Capehart was incensed when Tumulty later did not apologize to him for publishing it. He wrote that he felt additionally put off when Tumulty said Biden's choice of words was insulting to people who had lived through racial segregation in the South.
'Tumulty took an incident where I felt she ignored and compounded the insult by robbing me of my humanity,' he wrote in the book, which was published last week.
'She either couldn't or wouldn't see that I was black, that I came to the conversation with knowledge and history she could never have, that my worldview, albeit different from hers, was equally valid.'
Capehart left the editorial board after complaining about the incident to human resources and other senior figures at the paper, Semafor reported.
Capehart's frustrations were notable enough that after the piece was published, opinion editor David Shipley was asked to meet privately with the Rev. Al Sharpton to discuss the incident and alleged shortcomings in the paper's opinion coverage, Semafor reported.
The claims made by Capehart in his new book have also reportedly rankled Washington Post staffers, according to Semafor.
Capehart's description of the incident in his book as well as a recent discussion that he held with former Biden administration official Susan Rice at a local Washington, DC, bookstore last week has been the subject of internal recriminations at the newspaper in recent days, Semafor reported.
According to two Washington Post staffers, staff have complained privately that the book publicly pitted current colleagues against each other and appeared to run afoul of the Post's editorial guidelines around collegiality, as well as rules that restrict staff from publicly disclosing internal editorial conversations.
The Post has sought comment from the Washington Post, Tumulty and Capehart.
In a statement to Semafor, Tumulty noted that the paper had repeatedly published opinion pieces criticizing Georgia's 2021 voting laws limiting ballot access, but said she would not comment further on the book or the Post's editorial processes.
'I have a very different recognition of the events and conversations that are described in this book, but out of respect for the longstanding principle that Washington Post editorial board deliberations are confidential I am not going to say anything further,' Tumulty told Semafor.
Some current and former staff told Semafor that they felt Capehart's decision to go after Tumulty in a book and on his book tour over an editorial disagreement, as well as the actual description of the incident, was unfair to her.
'Ed board members, current and former, are honor bound not to discuss specific deliberations publicly,' former deputy opinion editor Chuck Lane said in a text to Semafor.
'I can only say that Karen took an unsought leadership role when the paper needed her, and performed it superbly and 100 percent honorably, despite extraordinary health challenges — for which I admire her greatly.'
The Washington Post editorial board has undergone considerable upheaval in the last nine months.
Just before the Nov. 5 presidential election, billionaire owner Jeff Bezos blocked the editorial board from endorsing the Democratic nominee, then-Vice President Kamala Harris.
Earlier this year, Bezos overhauled the opinion section so that it would promote 'personal liberties' and 'free markets' — a move that prompted the resignation of Shipley.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ukrainians among foreign nationals in US targeted for transfer to Guantanamo, WP reports
The Trump administration is preparing to transfer thousands of undocumented foreign nationals, including Ukrainian citizens, to the U.S. military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, the Washington Post reported on June 10, citing undisclosed U.S. official sources. The infamous prison facility was established by the Bush administration in 2002 to hold suspected terrorists amid the War on Terror. Its operations attracted broad criticism for reports of torture, abuse, and for the facility's position outside of normal legal frameworks. The detainees reportedly include individuals from countries such as the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Ukraine. The move is part of a broader plan to free up capacity at overcrowded domestic facilities. U.S. officials told the Washington Post that there were no plans to notify the governments of these citizens before their transfer to the facility. Medical screenings for 9,000 individuals are reportedly underway to assess whether they are physically fit for transfer. Internal documents reviewed by the Washington Post suggest the facility is currently underutilized and could accommodate more detainees. The Homeland Security Department and the White House declined to comment for the Washington Post on the reporting, which is based on information from multiple anonymous officials and internal documents. A defense official maintained that current operations at the base remain "unchanged" and refused to speculate on "future missions." Some home countries of the targeted detainees have previously expressed willingness to repatriate their nationals, but have been deemed too slow by U.S. immigration authorities. The White House has not confirmed the number of Ukrainians affected, and Ukraine's Foreign Ministry has yet to comment. The plan to revive Guantanamo as a holding site for mass immigration enforcement is part of President Donald Trump's broader pledge to ramp up deportations and arrests, with a goal of at least 3,000 arrests daily, according to White House officials. Previously, the media reported that the Trump administration planned to revoke the temporary legal status of 240,000 Ukrainian refugees who fled Russia's invasion. According to a March 6 article by Reuters, the administration aims to cancel refugees' immigration status granted under the Biden-era Uniting for Ukraine program, potentially exposing them to deportation. Although the White House denied the claim, internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) documents suggest preparations for fast-tracked removals are underway. Read also: Ukrainian boxer Usyk invites Trump to his home to see Russia's war firsthand, BBC reports We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Lammy in Gibraltar ahead of further talks with EU
Foreign Secretary David Lammy is in Gibraltar ahead of further talks on a potential post-Brexit deal. Talks on rules governing the border of Spain and Gibraltar have been ongoing since Britain left the European Union in 2020, but an agreement has not yet been reached. Mr Lammy is in Gibraltar on Wednesday for talks with chief minister Fabian Picardo. Today, with @DavidLammy and @SDoughtyMP we held a Cabinet meeting in No6 Convent Place to agree final parameters for negotiation. We will now travel to Brussels to meet @MarosSefcovic and @jmalbares. It's time to try to finalise arrangements for lasting, stable relationship… — Fabian Picardo (@FabianPicardo) June 11, 2025 He will then head to Brussels for further discussions with European counterparts on an agreement over the overseas territory. In a post on X on Wednesday morning, Mr Picardo said it is 'time to try to finalise arrangements for lasting, stable relationship between Gibraltar and the EU/Spain which is safe, secure and beneficial'. He also shared images of his meeting with Mr Lammy and foreign office minister Stephen Doughty. Gibraltar was ceded to the UK by Spain in 1713 and the population is heavily in favour of remaining a British overseas territory. The last time it voted on a proposal to share sovereignty with Spain, in 2002, almost 99% of Gibraltarians rejected the move. Gibraltar also hosts an RAF base at its airport. The Government, in line with its Conservative predecessors, has said it will not sign up to a deal that gives sovereignty over Gibraltar to another country, or that the Gibraltarian government is not content with. The strategic defence review, released earlier this month, said the UK would maintain a military presence in Gibraltar, 'upholding the sovereignty of British Gibraltar territorial waters'.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Military deployment in L.A. puts Trump's authority to use troops at home in the spotlight
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's move to send National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles amid unrest over his immigration policies has given new weight to a lingering question: How far can a president go in using the military to quell domestic disturbances? For now, the military has a limited role in Los Angeles, at least on paper, focused on protecting federal buildings and activities. But that hasn't stopped California's Democratic leaders, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, from vehemently objecting to Trump's actions. Trump has not taken the more drastic step of invoking the Insurrection Act, the name given to a series of legal provisions that allows the president, in certain circumstances, to enlist the military to conduct civilian law enforcement activities. But Elizabeth Goiten, an expert on national security at the Brennan Center for Justice, noted that the memorandum Trump issued Saturday authorizing military involvement in support of immigration enforcement makes no reference to Los Angeles, meaning it applies nationwide. "That's just a red alert," she said. "If we have the military being pre-emptively deployed throughout the country to effectively police protests, that is the hallmark of authoritarian rule." Although the military's role may initially be limited to a protective function, Goiten said that could easily be expanded in certain situations to include use of force and detention of protesters even without invoking the Insurrection Act. She pointed to the response of federal agencies under Trump during protests in Portland and Washington, D.C., in 2020. Ilan Wurman, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, said that to this point, Trump has acted within existing precedents that allow the president to use the military to assist with the enforcement of federal law. 'Federalizing the National Guard, using regular forces to restore order, is in my view well within the range of prior precedents,' he said. But, Wurman added, any attempt to invoke the Insurrection Act 'would be more problematic.' Generally, using the military to conduct broad law enforcement activities is forbidden under another law, the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. But that statute contains many loopholes, of which the Insurrection Act is one. The Posse Comitatus Act was enacted at the tail end of the post-Civil War Reconstruction period, erecting a new barrier against military intervention in the South as it moved toward the Jim Crow era. The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. President George H.W. Bush acted at the request of Tom Bradley, the Democratic mayor of Los Angeles, and Pete Wilson, the state's Republican governor. Previously, the act was used to desegregate schools in the 1950s and '60s amid opposition from state and local leaders in the South. In calling in the National Guard, Trump invoked a different law that allows the president to do so when there is an invasion or a danger of invasion or a rebellion or a danger of rebellion or when "the president is unable to with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." The law states that orders 'shall be issued through the governors of the states,' which has not happened in this case, as Newsom is adamantly opposed to Trump's move. California has filed a lawsuit that cites the skirting of Newsom's role under that provision as well as broader claims that Trump is infringing on California's sovereignty, among other things. "There is no invasion. There is no rebellion," California Attorney General Rob Bonta said Monday. In a new court filing Tuesday, Bonta said there was a "substantial likelihood" that troops will "engage in quintessential law enforcement activity" in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act if a judge does not take immediate action. He cited plans for National Guard members to provide support for immigration operations by, for example, securing perimeters in communities where enforcement activities are taking place. NBC News has separately reported that Marines deployed to Los Angeles could be used to transport immigration officers to arrest locations. Attorney General Pam Bondi has said she fully backed Trump's actions. 'We are going to enforce the law regardless of what they do,' she said, referring to Newsom in a Fox News interview Monday. 'Look at it out there. It looks like a Third World country.' Chris Mirasola, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center, said the impact of Trump's current plan could be limited by practical considerations, including the number of military personnel available and the cost of paying National Guard troops on active duty. "This ends up becoming extremely expensive very quickly," he added. The cost of the Los Angeles deployment alone is about $134 million, a defense department official said Tuesday. Military personnel are also likely to have little training in how to approach a domestic protest. "This is not in their normal mission set. There's always risk of escalation," which would only be more pronounced if the Insurrection Act was used, Mirasola added. If the president invokes the Insurrection Act, troops would not be limited by law to protecting federal property and personnel. Instead, they could have a much more active role on the streets, with a greater possibility of encountering civilians. While troops may not be able to carry out all the functions of federal law enforcement officers, such as conducting immigration raids, they could assist without violating the law, Mirasola said. There are also questions about whether the judiciary would intervene if Trump sought to use the Insurrection Act — or even who would have legal standing to sue to stop Trump. Litigation in that scenario could mirror a legal fight that has already played out over the Trump administration's efforts to use a wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, to swiftly deport certain immigrants without affording them due process. The Supreme Court said due process is required, that detainees be given a proper chance to raise legal objections before a federal judge. But the court also said such lawsuits must be brought via habeas corpus claims from the people affected, not under a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act. Any attempt to use the Insurrection Act could be challenged, 'but what shape the challenge takes may depend on the basis for invocation, how it is implemented and how it is directly carried out on the ground,' a civil rights lawyer said. Although Trump and his allies have referred to protesters in Los Angeles as "insurrectionists," there is no plan at the moment to invoke the Insurrection Act, a White House official told NBC News. Speaking on Sunday about whether he would seek to use the law, Trump said there was not currently a reason to but did not rule it out in future. 'Depends on whether or not there's an insurrection," he said. This article was originally published on