At first glance, USA Today may not seem like an obvious candidate for a “Hall of Shame.” Compared to overtly ideological outlets like Rolling Stone or The Nation, USA Today presents itself as cheerful, accessible, and middle-of-the-road. Its colorful graphics, digest-style layout, and bite-sized summaries are designed to appeal to a broad, mainstream audience. But beneath the surface of its polished design lies a deep and persistent progressive bias.
Unlike openly radical publications, USA Today operates more like a Trojan horse. It cloaks its ideological commitments in the appearance of neutrality—presenting progressive assumptions as settled facts and smuggling leftist perspectives into articles under the guise of “public interest journalism.” This makes it far more dangerous. Readers often accept its framing uncritically, unaware that they’re being nudged into a worldview rooted in secular progressivism, critical theory, and cultural relativism.
This article will examine USA Today’s ownership, tone, editorial patterns, ideological fingerprints, scandals, and specific handling of twenty dividing issues that separate progressive and conservative worldviews.
Ownership and Worldview
Who Owns USA Today?
USA Today is owned by Gannett Company, Inc., the largest newspaper publisher in the United States by daily circulation. Gannett also owns more than 200 local newspapers across the country. The company merged with GateHouse Media in 2019, and the newly combined entity retained the Gannett name.
While Gannett claims editorial independence across its properties, its institutional culture is steeped in corporate progressivism. This is evident in its strong emphasis on DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) programs, ESG priorities, and “social impact” journalism. Gannett’s internal hiring and editorial policies have increasingly leaned leftward, mirroring the values of the academic and journalistic establishment.
Revenue Sources and Editorial Incentives
As a corporate entity, Gannett is primarily driven by ad revenue, subscriptions, and syndication deals. In recent years, USA Today has received grants and funding from progressive-aligned nonprofits and partnerships for coverage of issues like “misinformation,” “gender equality,” and “racial justice.” Among its partners are the Knight Foundation, the Democracy Fund, and the American Press Institute—all organizations with strong ties to progressive policy circles and philanthropic donors.
These financial relationships reinforce USA Today’s editorial slant: in order to keep the grants flowing, the coverage must reflect a particular worldview. That means emphasizing “structural racism,” “climate urgency,” “LGBTQ+ rights,” and other priorities dictated by the nonprofit-media complex.
Typical Claims and Outlook
General Tone and Presentation
USA Today presents itself as neutral and non-confrontational. Its visual design and article length give it a consumer-friendly, almost apolitical feel. But this tone masks a consistent framing that treats progressive assumptions as facts while portraying conservative viewpoints as controversial, outdated, or dangerous.
Articles rarely use overtly combative language but rely instead on slanted headlines, selective sourcing, and loaded framing. When reporting on controversial social issues, USA Today often offers only the progressive side of the story—dismissing or ignoring counterarguments altogether.
Consistent Ideological Framing
The publication regularly platforms:
- Gender ideology: framing trans-identifying children as victims of “hate,” promoting “gender-affirming care”
- Race activism: using terms like “white supremacy,” “systemic racism,” and “equity” without challenge
- Climate alarmism: presenting the most extreme projections as mainstream science
- Gun control: painting opposition as driven by paranoia or corporate greed
- Religious liberty: portraying Christian conscience claims as bigotry
Specific Incidents of Bias
The Disinformation “Expert” Scandal (2022)
In March 2022, USA Today published an article attempting to “debunk” what it called “misinformation” about biological men competing in women’s sports. The piece cited an “independent misinformation expert” named Brandy Zadrozny—an NBC reporter known for her aggressive attacks on conservative social media users and independent journalists.
This “fact-check” was quickly exposed as partisan opinion disguised as objective truth. Critics noted that the article ignored scientific evidence about biological differences in favor of activist talking points. It also framed parents concerned about fairness in women’s sports as engaging in “anti-trans hate,” revealing its ideological agenda.
The Hunter Biden Laptop Story (2020 Election)
In the lead-up to the 2020 presidential election, USA Today was among the outlets that either ignored or dismissed the New York Post’s reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptop as “unverified” or “Russian disinformation.” The publication’s editorial stance aligned with the corporate media blackout designed to protect Joe Biden’s candidacy.
When the story was later verified by multiple outlets—Politico, The New York Times, The Washington Post—USA Today offered no apology or self-examination. The suppression of a major corruption story was treated as good journalism because it aligned with progressive electoral goals.
Neo-Marxist and Ideological Influence
Embrace of Critical Theory and Identity Politics
USA Today frequently presents progressive academic theories as mainstream perspectives:
- Uses “equity” as a normative goal without defining it
- Frames “white privilege” as a given in discussions of education, crime, and employment
- Refers to historical figures and institutions as “colonialist” or “racist” with no counterpoint
- Describes gender as a “spectrum,” and biological sex as “assigned at birth”
Hostility to Christian and Constitutional Values
Religious objections to transgenderism or same-sex marriage are typically cast as hate or bigotry. The publication shows little interest in the First Amendment rights of Christian business owners, churches, or schools.
Articles on the Constitution often frame originalist interpretations as outdated or extremist. For example, discussions of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade were saturated with panic and despair, not balanced analysis.
Partnership with Progressive “Fact-Checkers”
USA Today is a prominent player in the so-called “fact-checking” industry. But rather than offering balanced analysis, its fact-checks often promote progressive talking points while labeling conservative arguments as “false,” “misleading,” or “debunked.”
The outlet even partnered with Facebook to police misinformation on social media—an arrangement that has drawn criticism for suppressing legitimate debate and dissent.
Most Ideologically Reflective Figures
A. Susan Page – Washington Bureau Chief
Susan Page, long-time D.C. correspondent for USA Today, exemplifies the outlet’s establishment-left bias. While she presents herself as an objective journalist, Page has moderated Democratic debates and hosted interviews that treat progressive talking points as unassailable truths. She is often featured on left-leaning panels and networks such as MSNBC, where she echoes liberal Beltway consensus views on topics like Trump, voting laws, and abortion.
B. Rex Huppke – Opinion Columnist
Rex Huppke, a columnist frequently featured on USA Today’s opinion pages, uses a sarcastic, mocking tone to attack conservatives. His pieces often ridicule Republican lawmakers, conservative voters, and religious Americans. While opinion sections are expected to be ideological, USA Today rarely publishes counterbalancing voices with similar prominence or frequency.
C. Alia Dastagir – Reporter on Gender and Social Issues
Dastagir writes extensively on “gender identity” and “intersectional feminism.” Her reporting is a masterclass in progressive framing: using preferred pronouns, elevating gender theory, and portraying conservative concerns as phobic or harmful. Articles authored by Dastagir often blur the line between reporting and activism.
D. Chelsey Cox – White House Reporter
Chelsey Cox covered the Biden administration with a tone that veers between respectful and protective. Her articles often framedGa Biden policies as solutions to inequality or climate injustice, while GOP criticisms are labeled as obstructionist or extreme. This lopsided treatment reflects the institutional bias running through USA Today’s political coverage.
Scandals and Controversies
Reporter Firing over Fabricated Sources (2022)
In 2022, USA Today was forced to retract 23 articles written by reporter Gabriela Miranda after an internal audit revealed she had fabricated sources. Miranda often covered social justice topics, and her stories included quotes from individuals and experts who didn’t exist.
While USA Today took corrective action, the scandal revealed a deeper issue: the outlet’s desire to promote a progressive narrative sometimes outweighed its commitment to journalistic integrity. The invented sources were used to reinforce ideologically convenient storylines, and editors failed to catch the deception until outside parties raised concerns.
Use of “Fact-Checking” to Suppress Conservative Speech
USA Today’s role as a Facebook fact-checking partner brought it under scrutiny when it labeled true claims as “false” if they didn’t align with progressive narratives. In one instance, it flagged a claim that masks were ineffective in schoolchildren—only to reverse itself months later when additional studies confirmed what critics had said all along.
These “fact-checks” often involve subjective interpretation disguised as objectivity. The power to silence content on social media gives USA Today significant influence—one it has repeatedly used to the benefit of the Left.
USA Today on 20 Progressive vs. Conservative Issues
Let’s now examine USA Today’s position across 20 key ideological dividing lines, which comprise a litmus test for wokeness:
1. Election Integrity and Voter Laws
USA Today echoes Democratic talking points on voting. It labels voter ID laws as “discriminatory,” warns of “voter suppression,” and platformed critics of Georgia’s 2021 election law while ignoring supporters. Critics of mail-in ballots or ballot harvesting are portrayed as conspiracy theorists.
2. Abortion and Reproductive Rights
It consistently calls abortion “healthcare” and treats Roe v. Wade as sacred precedent. Pro-life advocates are described as “anti-choice,” and crisis pregnancy centers are often framed as deceptive. Religious arguments are rarely treated respectfully.
3. Gender Identity and Transgender Policies
The publication aggressively promotes transgender ideology. It praises gender transitions for children, attacks bans on puberty blockers, and frames parental rights efforts as “anti-trans legislation.” Articles treat the scientific debate as settled in favor of radical gender theory.
4. Race and Systemic Racism
“Systemic racism” is treated as an uncontested fact. USA Today promotes critical race theory principles, supports DEI in schools and corporations, and portrays objections as racially insensitive or ignorant. It frequently cites activist scholars while ignoring alternative viewpoints.
5. Climate Change and Energy Policy
The magazine promotes alarmist rhetoric, calls for drastic emissions cuts, and supports the Green New Deal framework. Fossil fuels are vilified, and renewable energy is idealized without meaningful discussion of economic feasibility or reliability.
6. Immigration and Border Security
USA Today supports DACA, amnesty, and expansive refugee intake. It frames border enforcement as harsh and cruel, regularly emphasizes stories of migrant suffering, and de-emphasizes border crime and national sovereignty concerns.
7. Israel and the Middle East Conflict
While less overt than some outlets, USA Today has increasingly adopted a sympathetic tone toward Palestinian claims. Coverage often omits the context of Hamas terrorism or treats Israel’s self-defense measures as aggressive. Its language during the 2023–2024 Gaza conflict was notably slanted.
8. Second Amendment and Gun Control
The outlet emphasizes mass shootings, favors gun restrictions, and promotes gun buyback programs. It often cites gun control advocacy groups uncritically, while defensive gun use and Second Amendment arguments are minimized or caricatured.
9. LGBTQ+ Rights and Religious Liberty
LGBTQ+ rights are a sacred cause at USA Today. It promotes same-sex parenting, trans ideology, and drag performances for children. Articles show little sympathy for Christian business owners, churches, or religious liberty claims.
10. COVID-19 Policy and Mandates
During the pandemic, USA Today supported mask mandates, lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and censorship of “misinformation.” It attacked dissenters like Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and the Great Barrington Declaration authors. Even after policies changed, it continued to defend heavy-handed approaches.
11. Policing and Criminal Justice
The outlet gives favorable coverage to Black Lives Matter and police reform activists. It frequently emphasizes police misconduct while downplaying rising urban crime. Calls for “reimagining policing” are presented as visionary rather than dangerous.
12. Education and Parental Rights
USA Today generally opposes parental control measures. It defends school DEI initiatives, gender and sexuality curricula, and books with explicit content in school libraries. Parents concerned about these trends are often framed as extremists.
13. Censorship and Big Tech
It supports content moderation to combat “misinformation,” especially on topics like elections, vaccines, and gender identity. Free speech concerns are dismissed as right-wing talking points, even when platforms openly collaborate with government officials.
14. January 6 and Political Violence
The Capitol riot is treated as an “insurrection” and existential threat to democracy. USA Today devotes extensive coverage to prosecutions while offering minimal coverage of the harsh conditions in D.C. jails or legal irregularities in cases. Antifa and BLM riots receive less scrutiny.
15. Corporate Wokeness and ESG
It promotes corporate DEI efforts and ESG investing. It rarely questions whether companies should focus on profit or serve all stakeholders. Executives who adopt leftist views are praised; dissenters are shamed or ignored.
16. Hunter Biden, Biden Family, and Political Corruption
The outlet was complicit in suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story and continues to treat the scandal as overblown or irrelevant. Coverage of Biden family finances is perfunctory and delayed, compared to its aggressive coverage of Trump.
17. Trump and the Republican Party
Donald Trump is portrayed as a threat to democracy, civility, and public health. His supporters are often characterized as conspiracy theorists, racists, or cultists. The GOP is described as radicalized, with little distinction between establishment figures and fringe activists.
18. Affirmative Action and Racial Preferences
It defends racial preferences and criticizes colorblind policies. The Supreme Court’s decision ending race-based admissions was mourned as a loss for “diversity,” and merit-based standards are framed as inherently unjust.
19. International Institutions and Sovereignty
USA Today defers to the World Health Organization, United Nations, and similar bodies. It often treats globalism as common sense and national sovereignty as provincial or reactionary.
20. Culture War Issues
The publication supports drag queen story hours, inclusive language reforms, and redefining traditional morality as hate. It rarely platforms cultural conservatives and dismisses concerns about sexualization of children as “right-wing panic.”
Final Evaluation and Conclusion
The Most Dangerous Kind of Bias
USA Today’s greatest sin is not the shrillness of its language or the radicalism of its staff—it is the subtlety of its deception. Its greatest tool is plausibility. Unlike publications that wear their progressivism like a neon badge, USA Today operates under the friendly guise of neutrality. Its articles rarely scream ideology—they whisper it through careful framing, selective sourcing, and narrative conformity.
It is precisely this soft bias that makes USA Today dangerous. Millions of readers view it as a centrist publication, unaware that they are absorbing progressive dogma under the illusion of balance. It’s not the firebrand shouting on the street—it’s the smiling clerk at the information booth, calmly pointing the unsuspecting traveler in the wrong direction.
What USA Today Reveals About Modern Journalism
The Gannett-owned USA Today represents the “professionalized” wing of the media—polished, data-driven, and institutionally networked. But it also reveals the broader collapse of objectivity in mainstream journalism. Like many legacy outlets, it has adopted the view that journalism should not merely report reality, but shape it. That it should not just present competing ideas, but determine which ones are morally acceptable.
This is evident in its:
- Framing of news stories as morality tales (good = progressive, bad = conservative)
- Promotion of state-corporate narratives (on COVID, climate, gender)
- Minimization of traditional moral voices, especially Christian and constitutionalist ones
- Reliance on “fact-checks” as ideological enforcement tools
Its coverage treats questions about gender transitions, election integrity, or affirmative action as settled—and opposition as dangerous. But in doing so, it has abandoned its journalistic mission to inform. It now persuades, curates, moralizes, and censors.
Consequences for the Culture
What’s the cost of USA Today’s subtle activism? It contributes to the erosion of public trust in media, deepens ideological divisions, and helps form citizens who mistake moral certainty for intellectual honesty. It desensitizes readers to bias, making it harder for them to recognize when journalism becomes activism.
More disturbingly, USA Today often leads readers to embrace positions incompatible with historic American values:
- Replacing equal opportunity with equity quotas
- Replacing biological science with subjective identity
- Replacing liberty of conscience with state-defined “inclusion”
- Replacing objective reporting with curated consensus
For Christians and constitutional conservatives, the threat is clear. USA Today is not merely reporting on the culture—it is shaping it according to a worldview antithetical to truth, liberty, and God-ordained moral order.
Final Verdict: Hall of Shame Worthy
In summary, USA Today earns its place in the Hall of Shame not because it yells, but because it whispers. It is not the firebrand, but the slow-drip IV of ideology. It acts as if neutrality is still its guiding ethic, all while serving the priorities of the modern progressive movement.
- It masks its advocacy in “fact-checks” and “explainer” articles
- It excludes or ridicules conservative and Christian perspectives
- It supports the censorship of dissent in social media and politics
- It elevates unscientific and anti-religious claims as settled truth
- It embraces radical social experiments and presents them as moral imperatives
Its tone may be softer than Rolling Stone or The Nation, but its effects are more corrosive. Because it comes cloaked in credibility, it passes beneath the radar of many readers who would never knowingly consume partisan media.
For readers who care about truth, moral order, and American liberty, USA Today should be treated not as a guide, but as a warning.
Let the reader beware.
S.D.G.,
Robert Sparkman
rob@christiannewsjunkie.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.
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 rob@christiannewsjunkie.com if you want to comment on something afterwards, though.
If you have evidence that I am wrong about a material statement of fact, provide the evidence and I will gladly review it and make revisions if merited. Obviously, there are some assertions that are matters of opinion that I will not change, but I always strive to be truthful.
I will continue to add videos and other items to the Related Content section as opportunities present themselves.
I recommend these Youtube channels and commentators for good content on politics and news from a Christian and/or conservative worldview: Albert Mohler, Allie Beth Stuckey, Bill O’Reilly, CBN News, Hugh Hewitt, John Anderson Media (Australia), Nick Freitas, Ruthless Podcast (language warning), Scott Jennings, The Hot Zone with Chuck Holton, Vince Dao, and Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Albert Mohler’s channel on Youtube has a daily episode called The Briefing with Albert Mohler that I highly recommend. Allie Beth Stuckey’s channel is top-notch, too.
For livestreaming of political protests and riots by conservative commentators, check out Nate Friedman, Cam Higby, James Klug, and Nick Shirley. I don’t agree with the perspectives of all these commentators and the language of protesters is often obscene. Most news outlets will not cover these illegal assemblies, though, because it doesn’t promote their narrative.
Depictions of Jesus Christ are used in some illustrations. I realize that some including conservative Presbyterians consider this to be idolatry. I respectfully disagree with their position on this matter as the commandment forbids worshiping such depictions, and I do not worship these illustrations.