Politico emerged in 2007 with a bold promise: to provide real-time, granular, and relentless coverage of American politics. It branded itself as the outlet for political insiders—the kind of publication that congressional aides, lobbyists, and executive branch staffers check every morning before their second cup of coffee. With its focus on Capitol Hill maneuvering, campaign strategy, and bureaucratic detail, Politico positioned itself as both a news source and a power player. And to its credit, it delivers timely information, often scooping competitors on major political developments.
But behind the access and the impressive headline turnover lies a deeper problem—one that places Politico squarely in the Hall of Shame. While it may present itself as an insider’s chronicle of American politics, Politico has become increasingly shaped by progressive ideological assumptions. Its reporting often lacks philosophical diversity, subtly but consistently framing issues from a center-left to hard-left perspective. Through its story selection, sourcing preferences, and narrative framing, Politico helps launder left-of-center policy goals through a technocratic and “just-the-facts” veneer.
In short, Politico doesn’t shout its bias; it institutionalizes it. And in an age when technocratic credentialism has become a tool for Progressive activism, that’s no small concern. Politico’s influence is outsized—it’s not just read, it’s referenced by policymakers, cited by other journalists, and embedded in briefing packets for powerful people. This amplifies its slant and makes it especially dangerous for readers who assume they’re getting nonpartisan facts.
This article will examine Politico’s ownership, worldview, ideological leanings, reporting patterns, and influence. It will highlight specific incidents of bias, identify ideological drivers, and measure its performance on twenty key issues. While Politico has some redeeming qualities—such as its speed, professionalism, and insider access—its increasing entanglement with progressive narratives, activist causes, and selective blind spots demand a place in the Hall of Shame.
Ownership and Worldview
Politico was founded in 2007 by two former Washington Post journalists, John Harris and Jim VandeHei, with backing from Allbritton Communications, a company with a long history in media and political broadcasting. From the outset, the venture aimed to focus tightly on political reporting, offering a faster, more granular alternative to traditional newspapers. It rapidly gained popularity inside the Beltway for its aggressive pace and seemingly insider-level detail.
For its first decade, Politico was under the control of Robert Allbritton, who was generally viewed as a traditional media figure rather than an ideological crusader. However, in October 2021, the German media conglomerate Axel Springer SE purchased Politico for over $1 billion. This marked a turning point in both ownership and potential ideological tilt.
Axel Springer is Europe’s largest digital publisher and owns other politically active outlets such as Business Insider (formerly owned by Jeff Bezos) and the German newspaper Bild. Though the company claims to support “independent journalism” and mandates loyalty to “liberal democratic values,” these values are often interpreted through a socially progressive, globalist lens. Notably, Axel Springer’s corporate principles include support for a united Europe, the free market economy, and the transatlantic alliance, but they also lean heavily into liberal social priorities, especially on LGBTQ+ rights, open immigration, climate policy, and opposition to populist nationalism.
Internally, Politico has gone through culture shifts. Staff mutinies over opinion diversity, editorial resistance to including conservative voices, and the quiet ousting of contrarian contributors (such as when Ben Shapiro’s Playbook guest column caused internal revolt) all point to a newsroom dominated by Progressive consensus. While Politico is less overtly ideological than some legacy outlets like MSNBC or CNN, its editorial direction increasingly reflects the ideological monoculture of establishment left-leaning elites—particularly those in the D.C. professional class.
In terms of worldview, Politico projects a technocratic-progressive outlook. It often treats government expansion, administrative regulation, and centralized federal power as normative or desirable. The bureaucratic state is assumed to be a benevolent force unless Republicans are in charge—then it suddenly becomes incompetent or dangerous. Politico reporters frequently lean on academic, bureaucratic, or activist sources with ties to left-leaning institutions, while skeptics of federal overreach, cultural radicalism, or climate alarmism are underrepresented or framed as fringe.
In summary, Politico’s worldview is elite, globalist, technocratic, and center-left—though its language is often clinical rather than polemical. That makes it more insidious: it pretends neutrality but quietly reinforces Progressive priors.
Typical Claims and Outlook
Politico’s content can often be described as smart, fast, and detailed. But it’s not neutral. Its typical outlook assumes the benevolence and competence of the regulatory state, the moral superiority of progressive social causes, and the inherent threat posed by right-leaning populism. The tone is rarely hysterical, but the slant is consistent—and when it comes to subtle shaping of public perception, consistency can be just as powerful as sensationalism.
Here are common themes and narratives found across Politico’s reporting:
Technocratic Government as Savior
Policy debates in Politico often take for granted that complex problems are best solved through expanded federal programs, agency rulemaking, or legislative overhauls. Rarely does the outlet give serious attention to arguments favoring decentralization, individual liberty, or private sector alternatives. Regulations are treated as protective by default, rather than potential burdens or overreaches.
Republicans as Threats to Stability
While Democrats are often critiqued for strategic blunders, inaction, or internal conflict, Republicans are routinely cast as dangerous, extreme, or authoritarian. The GOP is most often covered through the lenses of Trumpism, election denialism, or internal dysfunction. Conservative arguments on immigration, gender ideology, or education reform are typically framed as cultural “battles” or “backlashes,” not reasoned responses to radical change.
The Moral Legitimacy of Progressive Social Movements
From Black Lives Matter to gender-identity activism to environmental justice campaigns, Politico grants near-unquestioned legitimacy to progressive social movements. When reporting on laws designed to restrict drag queen story hours, transgender surgeries for minors, or DEI mandates in education, Politico usually positions these efforts as regressive, politically motivated, or rooted in bigotry—seldom engaging the moral, theological, or constitutional arguments of the opposition.
COVID Orthodoxy and Medical Statism
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Politico functioned as a megaphone for public health bureaucrats, often parroting talking points from the CDC, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and Democratic governors without serious scrutiny. Vaccine mandates, lockdowns, and school closures were treated as responsible, science-based policy—even after data began to reveal serious unintended consequences. Dissenting scientists were largely ignored or treated as threats to public safety.
Climate Alarmism Framed as Policy Urgency
Coverage of climate issues in Politico rarely presents the full range of scientific or economic views. “Climate change” is treated not as a hypothesis but as a settled moral imperative, with the only debate being how fast and how far policy should go. Skeptics—whether scientists, economists, or energy experts—are marginalized. Fossil fuels are demonized, while unreliable renewables are praised as forward-thinking, even amid energy instability.
Insider Beltway Bias
Politico’s strongest appeal—its access to the D.C. insider class—is also its greatest weakness. The publication largely reflects the worldview of the professional-managerial elite. Christian conservatives, rural Americans, small business owners, homeschoolers, or blue-collar workers are seldom featured unless it is to explain why they’re angry or misinformed. The Overton window of discourse is centered on what staffers, consultants, and mid-level bureaucrats deem important—not what resonates with Main Street.
“Both-Sides” Framing with Unequal Weight
Politico frequently engages in both-sides journalism in structure—but not in tone. A typical article may quote a Democrat and a Republican, but the Democrat is often framed as reasonable and policy-driven, while the Republican is presented as disruptive, conspiratorial, or beholden to extreme factions. This gives a superficial appearance of fairness while reinforcing left-leaning conclusions.
In sum, Politico’s typical claims reflect a blend of technocratic elitism, cultural progressivism, and Democratic establishment thinking. The bias is smooth, often dressed in policy language and insider terminology—but it is bias all the same.
Specific Incidents of Bias or Framing
Politico’s bias isn’t usually loud or crude—it’s sophisticated and layered into the framework of its reporting. It shows up in the choice of sources, selective detail, and tone rather than explicit editorializing. However, there are several notable cases in which this bias has been exposed or particularly damaging.
Politico’s “Bombshell” Steele Dossier Reporting (2017)
Politico was among the early mainstream outlets to treat the Trump–Russia dossier assembled by Christopher Steele as credible, publishing stories that referenced its claims without sufficient skepticism. The dossier, later discredited by both the Mueller investigation and the Department of Justice Inspector General’s report, was part of the justification for a two-year media frenzy and a now-discredited narrative of Russian collusion. Politico rarely examined the political motivations behind the dossier’s funding (by the DNC and Clinton campaign) until long after the damage was done.
The Ben Shapiro “Playbook” Backlash (2021)
In a rare nod to ideological diversity, Politico invited conservative commentator Ben Shapiro to guest-write its flagship morning newsletter Playbook. The staff revolt that followed was both revealing and embarrassing. More than 100 Politico employees voiced outrage, and some threatened to resign, not because Shapiro said anything inaccurate—but because his mere presence violated the newsroom’s ideological comfort zone. The episode exposed Politico’s internal hostility to mainstream conservatism and reinforced suspicions that “neutral” journalism was being dictated by a hard-left staff culture.
Biden Family Scandals and the Hunter Laptop
Politico played a central role in discrediting the New York Post’s October 2020 story on Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop. Citing an open letter from 51 former intelligence officials, Politico labeled the story “Russian disinformation,” giving weight to what turned out to be a partisan talking point with no evidence. The laptop was later authenticated by multiple outlets, including the New York Times and Washington Post. Yet Politico has never issued a full retraction or apology for its role in suppressing a legitimate news story just weeks before a presidential election.
Roe v. Wade Leak and Framing of Pro-Life Laws
In May 2022, when the Supreme Court’s draft decision in Dobbs v. Jackson was leaked, Politico scored a genuine scoop. But in its follow-up coverage, the outlet quickly slipped into a narrative framing the ruling as a disaster for “reproductive rights,” giving primacy to abortion activists and progressive legal scholars. Pro-life arguments were barely engaged. The decision was cast as a rollback of rights, not a legal correction of constitutional overreach. Politico’s own role in the leak—possibly receiving classified material—also raised ethical concerns.
“Don’t Say Gay” Law Misrepresentation
Like most left-leaning outlets, Politico consistently referred to Florida’s Parental Rights in Education law as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, adopting the activist label instead of the bill’s actual title. The law, which restricts sexual orientation and gender identity instruction for young children, was rarely presented on its own terms. Politico allowed opponents of the law to define the narrative, portraying supporters as bigoted or politically cynical rather than concerned parents or moral conservatives.
January 6 Coverage vs. 2020 BLM Riots
Politico’s treatment of the January 6 Capitol riot was predictably aggressive—dozens of stories framed it as an existential threat to democracy, a Republican failure, and a justification for expanded domestic surveillance. By contrast, the 2020 BLM/Antifa riots, which caused billions in damage and multiple deaths, were often downplayed or euphemistically described as “racial justice protests.” The contrast in tone, frequency, and moral urgency reveals deep inconsistency in Politico’s reporting priorities.
Selective Coverage of Judicial Nominees
During the Trump administration, Politico frequently published critical profiles of conservative judicial nominees, scrutinizing their affiliations, church membership, and past writings. With Biden nominees, the tone shifted. Radical legal theorists and diversity hires were praised for their “lived experience,” and opposition from conservatives was often framed as obstructionist or even racist. This disparity reflects a dual standard in evaluating legal philosophy.
Neo-Marxist or Ideological Influence
Politico doesn’t wear its radicalism on its sleeve like The Nation or Jacobin, but it has not escaped the gravitational pull of Neo-Marxist influence. While its writing retains the procedural tone of the Washington insider class, the substance of its reporting has increasingly aligned with the assumptions of identity-based leftism. This drift is less about slogans and more about systemic framing—how problems are defined, whose voices are prioritized, and which narratives are treated as morally legitimate.
Critical Race Theory Assumptions
Politico has published numerous articles that accept the premises of Critical Race Theory (CRT) without directly naming it. White privilege, structural racism, and “equity” are treated as uncontroversial terms in coverage of law enforcement, education, housing, and healthcare. Conservatives who oppose CRT in public schools are routinely portrayed as reactionary or “fueling cultural wars,” while the ideological origins of CRT (in postmodernism and Marxist legal theory) are almost never explored. There is little evidence Politico understands or takes seriously the philosophical critiques of CRT offered by black conservatives, legal scholars, or Christian theologians.
Embrace of DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) Culture
Like many media organizations, Politico has incorporated DEI not only into its internal hiring practices but also into its editorial lens. Staff demographics, gender and racial identity, and personal lived experience are increasingly seen as journalistic assets—or even qualifications. Politico’s coverage of federal agencies, universities, and corporate America treats DEI programs as inherently virtuous and necessary. The potential for viewpoint discrimination, lowered standards, or anti-meritocratic outcomes is rarely considered.
Gender Ideology and Queer Theory
On matters of sex and gender, Politico has veered sharply into the territory shaped by queer theory. Terms like “assigned male at birth,” “gender-affirming care,” and “anti-trans legislation” are used uncritically. The outlet frequently repeats activist terminology without explanation or quotation marks, thereby smuggling ideological claims into ostensibly factual reporting. Politico has failed to report seriously on the medical and ethical debates surrounding puberty blockers, surgical interventions, and detransitioners—despite growing international backlash to these practices.
Anti-Capitalist Subtext
Though less overt than leftist publications, Politico’s coverage often implies that free markets create injustice unless tempered by state regulation. Corporate profits are frequently framed as suspect unless tied to progressive goals such as climate compliance or social justice. Politico’s economic coverage frequently champions government expansion (e.g., the CHIPS Act, Inflation Reduction Act, student loan forgiveness) and assumes that regulatory complexity is inherently preferable to market simplicity.
Environmentalism as Eschatology
Climate change reporting in Politico often adopts the apocalyptic framing of eco-Marxism, where capitalism and industrialization are blamed for impending planetary doom. “Just transitions,” “environmental justice,” and “climate reparations” are mentioned favorably. The publication promotes ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) compliance as responsible governance, ignoring its ideological roots and economic distortions. Skeptical scientists and energy analysts are generally absent or tokenized.
Institutional Capture and Progressive Gatekeeping
The rise of wokeness within Politico is not accidental—it reflects institutional capture by progressive ideologues. This is evident in their staff conflicts (as in the Ben Shapiro Playbook backlash), the soft enforcement of groupthink in political coverage, and the increasing use of advocacy-group data (e.g., from the ACLU, SPLC, or Human Rights Campaign) as neutral sourcing. The ideological monoculture within the newsroom leads to progressive assumptions masquerading as consensus facts.
In summary, Politico may not quote Karl Marx or praise Lenin, but it has internalized many of the same assumptions found in the modern Neo-Marxist toolkit—reframed in bureaucratic, elite, and technocratic language. This makes the influence more insidious because it appears moderate while shaping the Overton window around radical premises.
Most Ideologically Reflective Figures
While Politico is less celebrity-driven than outlets like MSNBC or CNN, it still has several prominent journalists and editors whose work reflects and reinforces its ideological tilt. These figures often shape the outlet’s framing of political narratives and help define its editorial culture. Many of them have significant influence beyond Politico, with appearances on other networks, citation in elite policy circles, and extensive social media followings.
Ryan Lizza – Chief Washington Correspondent
Lizza is one of Politico’s most recognizable voices and frequently contributes to its flagship Playbook newsletter. Formerly of The New Yorker and CNN, Lizza’s reporting style is smooth, insider-driven, and decidedly center-left. His coverage of Republican politics often casts the party as driven by extremism, while Democrats are treated as the rational actors within the system. Lizza’s pieces frequently rely on anonymous sources from within the Democratic establishment, shaping narratives that align with mainstream liberal talking points.
Rachael Bade – Congressional Correspondent and Playbook Co-Author
Bade previously worked for The Washington Post and Politico Pro and has reported extensively on the Trump administration, congressional oversight, and impeachment proceedings. Her tone is polished, but her narrative framing often presumes that GOP resistance to federal overreach or cultural progressivism is performative or dangerous. She treats progressive Democrat priorities as legitimate topics of governance and rarely explores conservative principles with charitable framing.
Eugene Daniels – White House Correspondent and Playbook Contributor
Daniels is not only a contributor to Playbook, but also a fixture on MSNBC and CNN. Openly gay and a self-described progressive, Daniels is representative of the newsroom’s embrace of identity-first journalism. His reporting often includes stories about LGBTQ+ policy, diversity in government appointments, and racial equity initiatives—without balancing viewpoints or moral scrutiny. His editorial presence subtly pushes the normalization of progressive moral categories under the guise of “inclusive” politics.
Anita Kumar – Senior Editor for Standards and Ethics
Kumar’s title suggests neutrality, but in practice, her oversight leans toward maintaining ideological orthodoxy rather than genuine diversity of thought. Under her leadership, Politico has continued to suppress or sideline conservative voices while allowing progressive language and assumptions to filter into hard news stories. The outlet’s reluctance to acknowledge the legitimacy of culturally conservative viewpoints—on issues like abortion, marriage, or immigration—is traceable in part to editorial decisions made at her level.
Heidi Przybyla – Investigative Correspondent
Przybyla, who previously worked for NBC News and Bloomberg, covers religion and politics with a clear progressive lens. In 2024, she infamously suggested that Christian conservatives who believe in biblical inerrancy are a threat to democracy, explicitly criticizing the idea of “God-given rights” in the American founding. Her coverage and commentary reflect deep hostility toward traditional Christianity, natural law theory, and the fusion of biblical principles with civic life—making her one of the most ideologically transparent members of the Politico team.
Charlie Mahtesian – Senior Politics Editor
As a long-time strategist and editor at Politico, Mahtesian’s influence on electoral coverage is substantial. He’s known for directing coverage that often magnifies Democratic ground games and warns of Republican extremism. Under his direction, state-level reporting tends to highlight progressive gains as part of a moral arc of history while characterizing conservative policy victories as backlash or regression.
Politico Europe Staff – Globalist Leftists in Policy Clothing
Since being acquired by Axel Springer, Politico’s European branch has taken on a more globalist-progressive flavor. Its coverage of climate change, immigration, EU bureaucracy, and populist parties mirrors the European technocratic left. Staff reporters in Brussels and Berlin regularly dismiss right-wing parties as “illiberal,” “xenophobic,” or “authoritarian”—often using these terms as descriptors rather than analysis. Their ideological lens feeds back into the American edition’s global reporting.
Scandals and Controversies
Politico doesn’t generate scandal in the way more bombastic outlets do, but its most serious controversies are telling: they reveal a deeply embedded bias masquerading as elite objectivity. These incidents often expose the clash between its self-image as a nonpartisan “insider’s guide” and its actual role as a mouthpiece for establishment Progressivism.
The Ben Shapiro “Playbook” Firestorm (2021)
As mentioned earlier, when conservative commentator Ben Shapiro was invited to guest-write Playbook, Politico’s premier morning newsletter, internal backlash was swift and furious. Dozens of staff members expressed outrage not because of factual disagreement but because of Shapiro’s perceived ideological positions. This incident confirmed what many conservatives suspected: Politico’s newsroom culture is hostile to dissenting worldviews, even from mainstream voices on the right. The event caused enough internal crisis that Politico quietly retreated from similar future experiments with ideological diversity.
“Russian Disinfo” and the Hunter Biden Laptop (2020)
Politico played a key role in suppressing the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story, which revealed troubling financial entanglements and personal conduct by the President’s son. Rather than investigate the evidence, Politico ran with the letter signed by 51 former intelligence officials suggesting the story bore “hallmarks of Russian disinformation.” This framing spread rapidly and was used by then-candidate Joe Biden in a televised debate to deflect scrutiny. Only years later, after the laptop’s contents were verified, did Politico provide minimal acknowledgment—never issuing a clear retraction or apology.
This incident wasn’t just a lapse—it was a major media failure during a presidential election. Politico’s role in shielding the Biden campaign from legitimate scrutiny has irreparably damaged its credibility among readers who value journalistic independence.
Politico’s Role in the Roe v. Wade Leak (2022)
In May 2022, Politico published the leaked draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a historic Supreme Court case that would overturn Roe v. Wade. While breaking news is part of journalism, the leak itself was widely condemned—even by liberal legal scholars—as an unprecedented breach of judicial confidentiality. Politico never disclosed the identity of the leaker, nor did it appear to show concern over how the leak undermined the integrity of the Court. Instead, it used the scoop to frame the forthcoming decision as catastrophic for women’s rights, thus serving more as an activist tool than a neutral observer.
The failure to address the ethical dimensions of receiving leaked confidential deliberations from the nation’s highest court raises profound questions about Politico’s standards. It leveraged an institutional breach to push an ideological narrative—an action that helped fuel political rage, protests at justices’ homes, and threats to the safety of the judiciary.
COVID and the Fauci Favoritism
Throughout the pandemic, Politico became a faithful amplifier of the federal public health bureaucracy. It published dozens of uncritical articles quoting Dr. Anthony Fauci as a scientific authority while downplaying or ignoring contradictory studies, international data, or dissenting scientists. When the NIH’s relationship with gain-of-function research came under scrutiny, Politico offered scant investigation. Even as evidence emerged about the costs of lockdowns, school closures, and mask mandates, the outlet stayed largely within the bounds of progressive orthodoxy—presenting skepticism as misinformation rather than reasoned dissent.
This alignment with official narrative over empirical contestation wasn’t just bias—it was institutional cowardice in the face of scientific uncertainty. Politico failed to practice adversarial journalism when it mattered most.
Quiet Retractions and Story Suppressions
Unlike tabloids, Politico rarely publishes full-throated falsehoods. Its preferred method of bias is framing. But when stories do prove wrong, retractions are buried, if issued at all. Whether it’s misattributed quotes, one-sided characterizations, or misrepresented statistics, the outlet relies on its insider style to evade accountability. Rarely does it revisit faulty premises. The appearance of sophistication masks a deep unwillingness to self-correct in the public interest.
Politico’s Position on 20 Key Ideological Issues
Below is an issue-by-issue evaluation of Politico’s general treatment of twenty major ideological battlegrounds. These assessments are based on article content, headlines, editorial tone, and source selection. While Politico may feature the occasional counterpoint, the overwhelming pattern supports Progressive priorities.
1. Abortion and the Right to Life
Politico treats abortion as a fundamental right and rarely provides balanced coverage of pro-life arguments. It consistently uses phrases like “reproductive healthcare,” “abortion access,” and “threats to Roe v. Wade” while framing pro-life laws as extremist or punitive. The moral and scientific arguments for fetal personhood are virtually absent.
2. Marriage and Family
Politico supports same-sex marriage and affirms “nontraditional” family structures. Traditional Christian views on marriage and family are often described as “controversial” or “anti-LGBTQ+.” When covering religious liberty cases, the outlet usually sides with sexual minority claims over conscience protections.
3. Transgender Ideology
On transgender issues, Politico is firmly in the progressive camp. It uses activist-approved language (“gender-affirming care,” “anti-trans legislation”) and covers Republican opposition as bigoted or politically motivated. It does not seriously engage with medical concerns, detransitioner stories, or critiques of gender theory.
4. Race and Identity Politics
Politico promotes Critical Race Theory assumptions without using the name. Systemic racism is treated as a default reality, and “equity” is presumed virtuous. Reports on policing, education, and hiring practices emphasize disparity statistics without exploring other causal factors like culture, family breakdown, or education policy.
5. Immigration and National Sovereignty
The outlet favors liberal immigration policies, often portraying border security concerns as xenophobic or populist fear-mongering. It underreports the criminal, economic, and national security costs of open borders. Biden administration failures at the border receive less scrutiny than Trump-era enforcement policies.
6. Second Amendment
Politico generally supports gun control and treats pro-Second Amendment arguments as ideological rather than constitutional. Mass shootings are covered extensively, while armed self-defense incidents receive minimal attention. It gives voice to gun control groups but rarely interviews credible pro-gun academics or constitutional scholars.
7. Religious Liberty
Religious liberty claims are typically downplayed when they conflict with LGBTQ+ rights or abortion access. Politico rarely covers the legal or historical basis for religious freedom protections. Christian legal advocacy groups are often framed as controversial or radical.
8. Judicial Philosophy and the Constitution
Constitutional originalism is viewed skeptically, while “living constitution” interpretations are presented more sympathetically. Conservative justices are often profiled as threats to “progress,” while progressive ones are celebrated for protecting “rights.” Legal arguments from Federalist Society figures receive minimal fair coverage.
9. Education and Parental Rights
Politico sides with teachers’ unions and bureaucratic education systems over parental authority. Coverage of school board revolts often frames parents as manipulated by “right-wing outrage machines.” Curriculum debates about CRT, gender ideology, and sex ed are presented through a liberal lens.
10. Free Speech and Big Tech Censorship
While sometimes acknowledging concerns about Big Tech overreach, Politico generally views content moderation as a necessity to fight “misinformation.” It gives disproportionate weight to progressive academic sources and treats censorship of conservatives as either overblown or justified.
11. Climate Change and Energy Policy
Politico promotes aggressive climate action and accepts worst-case scenarios as baseline projections. It routinely praises international climate agreements and regulatory expansion. Oil, gas, and coal are villainized, while solar and wind are praised despite technological limitations.
12. China and Foreign Policy
Though occasionally critical of China’s human rights abuses, Politico tends to frame U.S.–China policy debates around trade and diplomacy, not ideology or moral confrontation. The CCP’s global ambitions and infiltration strategies are underreported. Republican hawkishness is portrayed as risky or reactionary.
13. Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement
The outlet sympathizes with criminal justice reform and often highlights racial disparity without examining behavioral or cultural variables. “Mass incarceration” is treated as inherently unjust, and police departments are depicted as needing reform rather than support.
14. Wokeness and Cancel Culture
Politico seldom covers the cultural fallout of wokeness. Cancel culture is framed as either exaggerated or morally necessary. Examples of conservative censorship or employment discrimination rarely make headlines unless linked to broader leftist narratives.
15. LGBTQ+ Agenda in Law and Society
The LGBTQ+ movement is portrayed as an unassailable civil rights cause. Religious objections are dismissed or vilified, and dissenters are cast as dangerous to public life. Politico supports every major leftist push on pronoun usage, trans access, and same-sex adoption.
16. COVID-19 Policy and Government Overreach
Politico served as a megaphone for lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and federal public health overreach. It gave little platform to dissenters, despite growing evidence against prolonged restrictions. Retrospective evaluations of COVID policy remain rare and timid.
17. Economic Policy and Taxation
The outlet favors Keynesian economics, increased taxation on the wealthy, and government redistribution. Conservative economists and supply-side arguments receive scant coverage. Inflation under Biden was downplayed early on and later treated as an unavoidable crisis.
18. Media Integrity and Narrative Control
Politico advances left-leaning narratives while maintaining a façade of neutrality. Its refusal to retract key stories (e.g., Hunter Biden laptop) undermines its credibility. It is part of the journalistic cartel that decides what’s “fit to print” and what gets memory-holed.
19. Cultural Marxism and Ideological Capture
While it avoids Marxist jargon, Politico adopts the outcomes: equity over equality, identity over merit, and emotion over truth. It never covers the ideological transformation of elite institutions through a critical lens.
20. American Exceptionalism and Patriotism
Politico treats expressions of patriotism and American uniqueness with suspicion, often associating them with nationalism or extremism. Its international reporting often favors multilateralism and globalist governance, downplaying sovereignty and national pride.
Final Verdict
Politico is not a tabloid. It doesn’t traffic in clickbait, sloppy grammar, or overt emotional manipulation. In many ways, it presents itself as the adult in the room—a polished, high-tempo outlet for political professionals who want facts before spin. But that self-presentation is precisely what makes Politico so dangerous: it cloaks leftist ideology in a veneer of bureaucratic sophistication and insider access. The poison goes down smooth.
Unlike openly partisan outlets like MSNBC or Vox, Politico rarely shouts. It whispers. It nudges. It selects. It frames. Through this quiet, cumulative bias, it redefines the terms of debate in Washington and beyond—offering its elite readers a worldview in which federal power is benevolent, social progressivism is inevitable, and conservative dissent is either irrational or dangerous.
Politico is not merely biased—it’s captured. Captured by the ideology of the managerial class, by the assumptions of the Beltway establishment, and increasingly by the progressive moral order that seeks not dialogue but conformity. Its internal scandals, selective reporting, and reflexive hostility to conservatism betray a newsroom that has forgotten how to tolerate, much less respect, the other half of America.
For these reasons, Politico earns its place in the Hall of Shame. It is not the worst actor on the stage—but it may be the most subtly corrosive. A wolf in technocratic clothing is still a wolf.
S.D.G.,
Robert Sparkman
MMXXV
christiannewsjunkie@gmail.com
RELATED CONTENT
Concerning the Related Content section, I encourage everyone to evaluate the content carefully.
If I have listed the content, I think it is worthwhile viewing to educate yourself on the topic, but it may contain coarse language or some opinions I don’t agree with.
Realize that I sometimes use phrases like “trans man”, “trans woman”, “transgender” , “transition” or similar language for ease of communication. Obviously, as a conservative Christian, I don’t believe anyone has ever become the opposite sex. Unfortunately, we are forced to adopt the language of the left to discuss some topics without engaging in lengthy qualifying statements that make conversations awkward.
Feel free to offer your comments below. Respectful comments without expletives and personal attacks will be posted and I will respond to them.
Comments are closed after sixty days due to spamming issues from internet bots. You can always send me an email at christiannewsjunkie@gmail.com if you want to comment on something afterwards, though.
I will continue to add videos and other items to the Related Content section as opportunities present themselves.