Washington Post Cuts Amazon Reporter Amid Mass Layoffs

Among the many layoffs The Washington Post announced Wednesday was reporter Caroline O’Donovan, who covers tech companies and corporate accountability with a focus on Amazon, the company founded by Post owner Jeff Bezos.

O’Donovan, who had worked at the newspaper since 2022, confirmed the news in a post on X. Her last story, published January 28, was ironically about Amazon’s own layoffs last week that put at least 16,000 employees out of work.

The day before, she wrote about tech executives and their relationships with President Trump following the killing of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis by federal agents, notably beginning the article by mentioning how Amazon CEO Andy Jassy attended a documentary screening of Melania with Trump the same evening that Pretti was killed.

O’Donovan also recently traveled to Minneapolis to cover the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown there. Her coverage of Amazon seemed to have slowed slightly in the middle of 2025, but she was still writing about the company just prior to her layoff.

Ever since Bezos took over the newspaper in 2013, critics have raised questions about how the Post would cover his business holdings, chief among them online retail giant Amazon, and whether the billionaire would seek to influence the Post’s coverage. While the Post was criticized at times for failing to disclose Bezos’s ownership in some stories about Amazon, and its coverage of Amazon seemed to fall short in some cases, it never seemed to give the company a free pass.

That might change now that there isn’t a dedicated reporter at the Post covering Amazon. What also might change is the newspaper’s relationship with President Trump, which has softened considerably in Trump’s second term. One thing is for sure: One of America’s foremost newspapers is now considerably smaller and weaker than it was at the beginning of the week.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard’s office just tried to clean up allegations she buried a whistleblower complaint—but made an even bigger mess, instead.

In May, a whistleblower accused Gabbard of restricting the distribution of a highly classified intelligence report for political purposes, saying that the inspector general for the Intelligence Community had failed to report a potential crime to the Department of Justice—also for political reasons.

Typically, an employee is able to share a complaint alleging wrongdoing directly with lawmakers, as long as the DNI instructs them on how to securely transmit it. But eight months later, the whistleblower’s complaint was still not transmitted to Congress—and was reportedly locked away in a safe, a person familiar with the matter told The Wall Street Journal.

In a series of posts Tuesday, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence tried to combat claims that Gabbard had “hindered dissemination” of the whistleblower complaint, citing a February 2 letter from Christopher Fox, the inspector general for the Intelligence Community.

ODNI claimed the letter proved that security guidance was provided and that Gabbard had “acted immediately, delivered what was required, supported lawful whistleblower channels,” even for a complaint that was deemed “baseless.”

But the letter doesn’t actually exonerate Gabbard, or her office.

In the letter, Fox claimed that Gabbard was never actually notified about the complaint—even after the former IC Inspector General Tamara Johnson determined in June that the complaint was of “urgent concern” if true, and the whistleblower asked that it be transmitted to the congressional intelligence committees.

Fox wrote that days after making her determination, Johnson received newly obtained evidence and issued a memo finding that the allegation against Gabbard “did not appear credible,” but that she could not determine the credibility of the other claim. Andrew Bakaj, the attorney representing the whistleblower, said he was never informed that any such determination was reached.

Johnson’s supplemental memo had “no legal effect” on the whistleblower’s right to submit the complaint to Congress, Fox wrote.

For months, nothing happened, but on September 17, ODNI acting General Counsel Christopher Fonzone cited “complexity in classification” as the reason transmission was delayed, according to Fox. In October, Fonzone was removed from his role and replaced by Jack Dever, and Johnson was removed from her role and replaced by Fox.

Fox claimed he learned about the complaint the day after he was appointed. “Accordingly, I prioritized its transmittal to Congress since the moment I first learned of it,” he wrote. But he also wrote at length how he’d personally determined the complaint did not meet the definition of “urgent concern.”

In December, months into Fox’s supposed crusade to transmit the complaint to Congress, he finally got around to asking Gabbard about providing guidance. “I inquired about security guidance and she revealed to me that the Acting General Counsel prior to Mr. Dever’s confirmation had never informed her of the outstanding requirement for this security guidance,” he said.

Gabbard “committed to providing the guidance as soon as practicable,” Fox wrote, adding that he also received communication from White House Counsel that they were reviewing the claims for a potential assertion of executive privilege. Fox received security guidance from Gabbard on January 30, and wrote that he intended to pass along the memos.

Here’s what Fox’s letter does confirm: “In the present case, the intelligence report from which the complaint was derived is the most sensitive to-date received by IC OIG as an ‘urgent concern’ complaint,” he wrote.

The letter also suggests that ODNI spokesperson Olivia Coleman lied in a statement Monday when she claimed “the Whistleblower’s complaint is with the Congressional Intelligence Committees for review.”

During a press conference Tuesday, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Vice Chair Mark Warner said his committee had yet to receive the complaint.

When asked if he wanted to apologize to the family of slain Minnesota protester Alex Pretti, Vice President JD Vance replied, “For what?”

Vance sat down with an interview with The Daily Mail in which he continued to cast federal agents as the real victims of Operation Metro Surge while offering virtually no sympathy for a U.S. citizen who was shot dead in the street by his own government.

“Have you apologized, did you plan to apologize to the family of Alex Pretti?” The Daily Mail’s Philip Nieto asked Vance.

“For what?”

“For, you know, labeling him an assassin with ill intent.”

The day Pretti was killed, Vance shared a post on X from White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller which read, “An assassin tried to murder federal agents and this is your response,” referring to calls for ICE to leave Minneapolis after killing Pretti. Calling Pretti—who was disarmed and then shot—an “assassin”is beyond slanderous, and just one of many false right-wing narratives that emerged in the aftermath.

“I just described to you what I said about Alex Pretti, which is that he’s a guy who showed up with ill intent to an ICE protest,” Vance continued.

“But if it’s determined that his civil rights were violated by this FBI investigation, will you apologize?”

“So if this hypothetical leads to that hypothetical leads to another hypothetical—”

“It’s a real case that’s open,” Nieto responded.

“Like I said, we’re gonna let the investigation determine … I don’t think it’s smart to prejudge the investigation, I don’t think it’s fair to those ICE officers.” Pretti was killed by Border Patrol, a mistake that only reaffirms Vance’s indifference towards the event.

Vance couldn’t care less about Pretti’s killing. He, Miller, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and many on the right smeared Pretti immediately after he was killed, calling him some trained domestic terrorist looking to assassinate ICE agents. But now, when the entire country can see that an act of brutal injustice has occurred, the vice president wants everyone to wait and see.

The state-sponsored violence in Minnesota will not stop until citizens desist from protesting it, according to Trump officials.

Border czar Tom Homan revealed Wednesday that the administration’s strategy is not to comply with local demands—which have included calls from both politicians and residents for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection to leave Minnesota altogether—in order to quell the civil unrest.

Instead, under the guise of closing the agencies’ bloody Minnesota chapter, Homan demanded that Minnesotans stop fighting back under their First Amendment rights so that the Trump administration could continue its mass deportation agenda unfettered by public opposition.

“My goal, with the support of President [Donald] Trump, is to achieve a complete draw down and end this surge as soon as we can,” Homan said during a press conference in the state. “But that is largely contingent upon the end of the illegal and threatening activities against ICE and its federal partners that we’re seeing in the community.

“We will not draw down on personnel providing security for our officers. I will not let our officers be put at risk,” Homan continued. “So we will not draw down on personnel providing security and responding to hostile incidents until we see a change in what’s happening with the lawlessness, with the impeding and interfering and assaulting ICE and border patrol officers.”

Later in the presser, Homan declined to confirm that the agencies would not stop random citizenship checks and racial profiling during their operations.

Federal agents killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis last month: ICU nurse Alex Pretti and award-winning poet Renee Nicole Good. Meanwhile, zero ICE agents have died during immigration enforcement operations since the agency was founded in 2003. Almost all protesters arrested and accused of assaulting ICE officers have seen their charges dropped.

Pretti’s and Good’s deaths—and the Trump administration’s ensuing smear campaign to frame the duo as “domestic terrorists”—were not received well by the American public. Instead, protests ensued across the country, demanding an immediate end to ICE’s brutality. People of all stripes flooded town halls for Republicans and Democrats alike to vent their frustrations, booing lawmakers’ support for a recent Homeland Security funding package that provided ongoing support for ICE.

The Washington Post made massive layoffs Wednesday, cutting one-third of its total staff, its sports and books sections entirely, and downsizing its international and local Metro sections.

The cuts were announced in a video message to staff, without any comments from the newspaper’s owner, billionaire founder of Amazon.com Jeff Bezos, who has been criticized for cozying up to President Trump in his second term and shifting the newspaper’s opinion section rightward towards “personal liberties and free markets.”

“The actions we are taking include a broad strategic reset with a significant staff reduction,” the Post’s executive editor, Matt Murray, said on the call.

Bezos’s silence on the cuts follows his silence last month after the FBI raided the home of a Post reporter, Hannah Natanson, who covers the White House’s efforts to cut the federal workforce. One staffer at the time said it was “nauseating and irresponsible to have our owner remain silent given this unprecedented event.”

Now, Bezos is silently presiding over cuts to the once venerable Post, which has lost thousands of subscribers due to its owner’s decision to court the Trumpian right. One of the laid-off staffers also happens to be Amazon beat reporter Caroline O’Donovan, which isn’t suspicious at all.

Remaining staff are obviously not happy with the move, with the Post’s unionized staff issuing a statement calling out the billionaire: “If Jeff Bezos is no longer willing to invest in the mission that defined this paper for generations and serve the millions who depend on Post journalism, The Post deserves a steward that will.”

Likewise, the Washington-Baltimore News Guild also issued a statement:

This story has been updated.

Last month, President Trump told The New York Post he’d be skipping this year’s Super Bowl—in Califorinia—because it was “just too far.” New reporting from Zeteo found that to be a lie, and a pitiful one at that.

The real reason the president is skipping the Super Bowl is because he knows he’d be drowned in a sea of 69,000 boos. Advisers privately warned him that the chances he’d be jeered were high, making lots of fodder for viral clips, according to four sources familiar with the conversations.

The Trump team likely came to this realization thanks to the president’s horrendous approval ratings, following the fatal federal government shootings of Nicole Good and Alex Pretti in Minnesota.

Trump took the easy way out here. But perhaps being forced to skip the country’s premier sporting event out of fear of public opinion will shock Trump into realizing how unpopular he is.

Ex-Prince Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, brother of King Charles, was forced to flee his decades-long home in the dead of night following revelations in the newest release of documents about Jeffrey Epstein.

Mountbatten-Windsor was suddenly moved Tuesday night from Royal Lodge to live in a cottage in Sandringham, the king’s Norfolk estate, a royal source told Reuters.

A friend of Mountbatten-Windsor told The Sun that the decision had been prompted by new revelations in the U.S. Department of Justice’s latest release of more than three million pages of Epstein-related documents.

“With the latest batch of Epstein files it was made clear to him that it was time to go,” the friend told the tabloid. “Leaving was so humiliating for him that he chose to do it under the cover of darkness.”

The newest trove of documents included emails suggesting that Mountbatten-Windsor had regularly kept in touch with Epstein for years after the New York financier was found guilty of child sex crimes. The dump also included never-before-seen images of Mountbatten-Windsor crouching over a woman whose face was redacted by federal investigators.

King Charles stripped Mountbatten-Windsor of his royal title in November, citing “serious lapses in judgement” following releases from the DOJ’s Epstein files.

In November, Epstein’s general ledger revealed that he had paid $200 each for two massages for “Andrew” in the year 2000, once in February 11 and again May 16. A flight log showed that Mountbatten-Windsor flew with Epstein, and his convicted co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell, from New Jersey to Palm Beach on May 12, 2000.

Virgina Giuffre alleged that she had been sexually exploited by Mountbatten-Windsor and Epstein’s other “adult male peers, including royalty, politicians, academicians, businessmen, and/or other professional and personal acquaintances.” The erstwhile Duke of York denied the accusation, and the suit was settled in 2022.

The ongoing drama surrounding the Epstein files is really starting to get under the president’s skin.

Donald Trump skewered CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins Tuesday afternoon after she inquired about the child sex trafficker’s myriad victims.

“But what would you say to people who feel like they haven’t gotten justice?” asked Collins.

“You are so bad,” Trump said. “You are the worst reporter. No wonder CNN has no ratings, because of people like you.”

“You know she’s a young woman, I don’t think I’ve ever seen you smile,” Trump continued. “I’ve known you for 10 years, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a smile on your face.

“You know why you’re not smiling?” he added. “Because you know you’re not telling the truth.”

Earlier this week, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche told Fox News that pretty much all of the rich and powerful people who partied with the “pedophile island” operator were off the hook as the administration had not found sufficient evidence to prosecute Epstein’s connections.

That included the president. On Sunday, Blanche told CNN’s State of the Union that the DOJ reviewed the files last summer but did not find credible evidence against Trump warranting further investigation.

Trump was mentioned more than 38,000 times in the latest batch of Epstein files, according to a New York Times review of the DOJ’s Friday document dump, which consisted of some three million previously unseen pages.

All in all, Trump was flagged in more than 5,300 files in the document cache, according to the Times.

But it’s far from the first time that Trump has turned to misogyny in order to shut down reporting on the Epstein files. In November, Trump ended a line of questioning on the topic by a Bloomberg News reporter by barking at her, “Quiet! Quiet, piggy.”

It’s rough working for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota these days. Many of the office’s lawyers and staff have quit over the Justice Department’s handling of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in the state, specifically the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. 

In federal court Tuesday, the stress apparently got to a lawyer volunteering to help the short-staffed office. 

Attorney Julie Le was representing the government at a hearing over ICE’s failure to follow court orders and immediately release people that it had wrongfully detained. When Judge Jerry Blackwell asked why the agency is not complying, Le said that the government was “overwhelmed” by the legal challenges to Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota, and that trying to get ICE to comply with court orders has required nonstop work for an office depleted by resignations. 

“I wish you would just hold me in contempt of court so I can get 24 hours of sleep,” Le said. “The system sucks, this job sucks, I am trying with every breath I have to get you what I need.” 

Blackwell said that he called the hearing to stress that ICE and other government agencies are not above the law.

“Some of this is of your own making because of non-compliance with orders,” Blackwell said.

Le normally doesn’t work for the U.S. Attorney’s Office. She used to work as an attorney for ICE in immigration court, and last month volunteered to help prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office deal with the many habeas petitions from immigrants in ICE detention seeking their release. But Le admitted to Blackwell that ICE is out of its depth, and was not prepared to argue cases in federal court. 

“We have no guidance or direction on what we need to do,” Le said.  

President Trump’s Minnesota crackdown has proceeded with little regard for the law, drawing a backlash from local residents who have scrambled to protest against the massive deployment of federal agents and their violent tactics. Since the deaths of Good and Pretti, those protests have only intensified, and Trump’s response has been to double down. The U.S. attorneys who haven’t quit in protest now have to deal with the legal fallout. 

A federal agent used his cell phone to take a picture of Marimar Martinez after she was shot five times by Border Patrol in Chicago—a chilling image that haunts her to this day.

Martinez testified in Congress Tuesday about how she was shot after she followed an agent’s car in Chicago while trying to warn her neighbors. DHS initially claimed that when the officers exited their vehicle, Martinez tried to run them over, “forcing the officers to fire defensively.” She was charged with felony assault of a federal officer despite ending up in the hospital herself.

In her testimony, Martinez revealed a new detail about what happened after she was shot.

“After being at the hospital for less than three hours, I was discharged from the hospital into custody of the FBI. As we left the hospital, I was escorted out through the back in a wheelchair. I observed over dozens of Border Patrol agents waiting outside the hospital,” Martinez said. “One of the agents came up to me with his cell phone and took a photograph of me. It was the same agent who had previously kept coming in and out [of my hospital] room, and I had to repeatedly tell him to leave. I told him I did not consent … but he did not care. It still haunts me that this agent has my photo on his phone. Was this the agent that shot me? Was this a trophy for him?”

Why did a federal agent keep coming into Martinez’s room while she lay in her hospital bed? And why did he have to take her picture if she had already been arrested, if not to keep a “trophy” for himself as Martinez suggested? Recall that Charles Exum, the agent who shot Martinez, bragged in text messages afterward, “I fired 5 rounds and she had 7 holes. Put that in your book, boys.”

While ICE has reportedly been scanning protesters’ faces, this instance feels much more personal.