Groundhog Day 2025 Prediction: Punxsutawney Phil DOES see his shadow

A longtime columnist is leaving the Washington Post after a clash with the newspaper's publisher over an op-ed she wrote criticizing owner Jeff Bezos' changes to the opinion pages.

Columnist and associate editor Ruth Marcus announced her departure Monday, saying she can no longer stay at the paper where she's worked for four decades after she said chief executive and publisher Will Lewis spiked her column that was critical of Bezos' mandate to the opinion section, reported NPR.

"Jeff's announcement that the opinion section will henceforth not publish views that deviate from the pillars of individual liberties and free markets threatens to break the trust of readers that columnists are writing what they believe, not what the owner has deemed acceptable," Marcus wrote in her resignation letter.

More than 75,000 digital subscribers canceled within 48 hours after Bezos imposed the changes last month, and opinions editor David Shipley stepped down over the order.

ALSO READ: 'A lot of damage control' at the White House after Musk blow-up: MSNBC's Lemire

"Will's decision to not … run the column that I wrote respectfully dissenting from Jeff's edict – something that I have not experienced in almost two decades of column-writing –underscores that the traditional freedom of columnists to select the topics they wish to address and say what they think has been dangerously eroded," Marcus wrote.

Bezos blocked the newspaper from endorsing Kamala Harris for president, which caused 300,000 digital subscribers to cancel within days, and the Amazon executive has moved closer to Donald Trump since the election.

"I love the Post," Marcus wrote in her resignation letter. "It breaks my heart to conclude that I must leave. I have the deepest affection and admiration for my colleagues and will miss them every day. And I wish you both the best as you steer this storied and critical institution through troubled times."

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration's request to keep billions in congressionally approved foreign aid frozen, but that fight isn't over.

The court did not set a timeline for when the money should be released, allowing the White House to continue to dispute the matter in lower courts, where U.S. District judge Amir Ali ruled last month that much of the money cut off by the administration should continue flowing while he reviewed the case, reported CNN.

"When you step back and look at what's happening in this order right here, it's 5-4," reported CNN's Katelyn Polantz, "and the four dissenters of what is being done right now for Donald Trump, those people are all the the conservative justices and what they are saying is, we can't believe that this Supreme Court is going to override what the executive wants to do here and just give this lower-court trial judge Ali in Washington, D.C., on the district court the power to figure this out right now, so a big struggle between the court system and Trump."

ALSO READ: 'Absolutely unconscionable': Ex-Republican demands Trump removed from office after fight

The administration had frozen billions in aid from the State Department and the US Agency for International Development, and several nonprofit groups that rely on that money filed lawsuits challenging the order as unconstitutional.

Ali had set a deadline for Wednesday to allow the funding to flow, but the administration rushed an emergency appeal and chief justice John Roberts unilaterally issued an stay that paused the case.

The government argued they're making “substantial efforts” to review payment requests to comply with Ali's order, but the plaintiffs were unsatisfied with that explanation.

“The government has not taken ‘any meaningful steps’ to come into compliance,” the groups said a Supreme Court filing last week.

Watch below or click the link.