Jennifer Rubin was hired by the Washington Post in November 2010 to provide a conservative voice in its opinion section, and for years she produced an energetic output of trenchant commentary for her “Right Turn” column and blog. She regularly riled many of the Post’s liberal readers with, among other positions, her cheerleading for Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign and her hardline support of Israel’s Likud party.
In the lead-up to the election of Donald Trump nine years ago, however, Rubin emerged as a leading voice in the Never Trump camp and publicly broke with the Republican Party, which she said had become “warped by Trumpism.” Not surprisingly, the famously thin-skinned Trump did not take kindly to Rubin’s columns, posting to Twitter that she was “a real dummy” with a “low IQ.” In an interview, she responded: “The low IQ bit never came up during my three years at Berkeley Law School, where I finished first in my class.”
Rubin also did her undergraduate work at Berkeley, majoring in history. “I think what has stayed with me from my California days, certainly from my Berkeley days, is a curiosity about the world, an understanding that, contrary to what our new Secretary of Defense says, diversity is our strength and that the possibility for human beings to create, to invent, to develop is really unlimited.”
Rubin left the Post in protest in January, after owner Jeff Bezos refused to run an endorsement of Kamala Harris for president. She has since co-founded a new journalistic effort on Substack called The Contrarian. The tagline: Not Owned By Anybody.
She recently took time out of her busy schedule to answer a few questions about surviving perilous times and hoping for better.
The interview has been edited for clarity.
Let’s talk about your decision to leave the Post. Was there a single moment where you knew it was time to go, or was it more gradual?
Over time, I came to see that the owner of the Washington Post became part of the problem rather than a defender of a free and vibrant press. The decision to squash the endorsement of Kamala Harris followed by an explanation that, frankly, didn’t hold water was extremely disturbing. I think the coverage from the Washington Post on the news side has to be, without question, unadulterated—has to be free from any kind of question that there’s any influence. And on the opinion side, he’s certainly entitled to have whatever opinions he has, but as an opinion journalist, my readers have to be confident that what they’re getting from me is my views, my take, my research, and my investigative reporting. When that comes into doubt because the owner of the Washington Post is clearly acting in support of his business interest quite apart from the Post, then the whole endeavor becomes corrupted. An owner of a major newspaper, a crown jewel in American journalism, who uses and abuses a position of trust, should not and cannot be rewarded with the loyalty of either readers or reporters. I left, and as you’ve seen, many, many other journalists have left as well. It fills me with sadness and despair at some level, but I think until the Washington Post is returned to independent responsible ownership, it will continue to diminish into irrelevance.
The Washington Post is the paper that, famously, broke the Watergate story under legendary editor Ben Bradlee. He would probably have a lot to say about this moment.
I would think so. I think both he and [publisher] Katharine Graham would be rolling over in their graves at the thought of the owner of the Washington Post giving a million dollars for the inauguration of a president of the United States. It’s simply appalling.
Many in the billionaire class have started kowtowing to the administration. If billionaires can’t stand up to Trump, who can?
That is the question of the moment, and you are right, we have seen billionaires not only in media but in finance and business essentially capitulate, and it is disturbing but perhaps not unexpected. In authoritarian and even fascist regimes, the very wealthy, the industrialists, often try to cut deals. It does not work out well. And I think this puts the onus on ordinary Americans and back on the free press to stand up for democracy, to reinforce values like truth and decency, and to hold fast to our principles even when people who should know better and have the resources to protect themselves are falling into line.
Every day seems to bring jarring new headlines. How do you, personally, keep going and not give in to despair?
It’s a challenge to process everything that’s going on. It’s a challenge not to become overwhelmed. That is the modus operandi of authoritarian regimes—they try to overwhelm you from every direction with all sorts of attacks, some trivial, some not trivial. And so I think of this as a long struggle. It’s not a one-day operation, a two-day operation, a week or a month, but it is a long struggle to reestablish constitutional order and respect the salience of objective evidence. I think when you keep an eye on what [Trump] is actually accomplishing as compared to what he’s trying, I think it becomes a bit more reassuring. In all of these actions that he’s taken with regard to DOGE, virtually all of them have been met with legal action, and in most cases they are now under a temporary restraining order. In terms of his foreign policy pronouncements, in many cases it’s just talk at this point. I don’t want to underestimate the damage he is doing, but I also think part of this is an effort for him to project strength and authority he really doesn’t have.
Your fellow Berkeley grad–turned–Washington Post columnist Max Boot described himself as politically homeless in Trump’s first term. Have you felt that way as well?
I think for a while I did feel politically homeless. I think there is no party that, obviously, aligns perfectly with an individual’s views. My views don’t align perfectly with my family members’, closest friends’, and myself at times. So allowing for the fact that no one party suits all of your interests and views, I think there is a two-party system in the United States, and only one party is standing up in defense of the rule of law, constitutional government, and American leadership in the world, and that’s the Democratic Party. So I have found my way to the Democratic Party.
Your new outlet is called The Contrarian. How did you settle on the name?
We debated the title for quite a long time. We went through many, many names, and I think The Contrarian describes a certain attitude and a spirit of defiance, independence, a refusal to go along with the crowd. We who founded The Contrarian all believe in democracy, in a vibrant free press, and, most important, in standing one’s ground, not being among those who kiss the ring and bend the knee.
How is it going so far?
We are astounded and overjoyed by the success we’ve had. I think we came along at a moment when people were looking for something different than [what] many of the legacy billionaire-owned and corporate-owned media outlets were providing. And I think an unfiltered, unabashed defense of democracy is very much needed. To our delight, we’ve not only grown a very large readership, but we really have a sense of community. When we do live events, when we do outreach to our subscribers, the reaction and the involvement is quite remarkable, and I hope that it will continue to draw people who are not ready to hide under their bed or to give up.
Would you encourage other journalists to start their own outlets?
I do encourage people to start something of their own. It’s not for everyone. It is a remarkably demanding but also rewarding adventure to essentially begin a startup. But I think we all are looking for opportunities to take a stand, to contribute something, to make our voices heard, and if people are working at an institution, at a newspaper, at an outlet, at a company that does not allow them to do that, then by all means I would say go out on your own. The only advice I would have is to do it with people you love and respect, and that makes it all the more delightful.
Last question: Who ultimately do you think presents more of a danger to the country, Musk or Trump?
Well, that’s the choice between the acting president, who apparently is Elon Musk, and the president in name only, who sat there like a little child at the Resolute Desk. I would say that they’re equally menacing in different ways. The result, however, is an erosion of democratic governance, sanity, and decency, and I think the American people are coming to see that neither one of them should, frankly, be entrusted with power.
Steve Kettmann ’85 is a co-director of the Wellstone Center in the Redwoods writers’ retreat in the Santa Cruz area and the author and co-author of numerous books. Follow him at Bluesky.
