Jeff Bezos spent $500 million on yacht, but no money for 'The Washington Post': Bernie Sanders

US senator Bernie Sanders, and (right) Amazon founder and the owner of 'The Washington Post', Jeff Bezos. (Image credit: AFP)

US senator Bernie Sanders has sharply criticised The Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos following the mass layoffs at the media house, arguing that Bezos’s recent luxury spending undercut any justification for the newsroom cuts.

“If Jeff Bezos could afford to spend $75 million on the Melania movie and $500 million for a yacht to sail off to his $55 million wedding to give his wife a $5 million ring, please don’t tell me he needed to fire one‑third of The Washington Post staff,” Sanders wrote on X.

He ended the post with a blunt refrain: “Democracy dies in oligarchy.”

Bezos has a net worth of over $244 billion, as per Forbes.

Sander's comments come a day after The Washington Post announced deep layoffs across departments, affecting almost 300 employees, including the elimination of its standalone sports coverage, intensifying concerns over the shrinking scale of one of America’s most influential newsrooms. The layoffs also impacted several Indian and Indian-origin journalists, including the son of Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, Ishaan Tharoor.

Layoffs ignite public backlash

Sanders’ remarks tapped into an already simmering backlash online, with journalists, readers, and political observers questioning how cost‑cutting at a legacy newspaper squares with the personal wealth and spending of its owner.

“Billionaires don’t cut journalism to save money—they do it to protect power,” one user wrote, dismissing explanations that framed the layoffs as unavoidable business decisions. Others said the episode highlighted a deeper imbalance, where decisions affecting democratic institutions are ultimately subject to the priorities of a single ultra‑wealthy owner.

Several users argued that journalism, particularly international and investigative reporting, should not be at the mercy of billionaire discretion. “Protecting journalism shouldn’t come at the mercy of a billionaire’s priorities,” one post read, adding that democracy depends on a robust press.

Netizens offer a counter‑argument 

Not all reactions aligned with Sanders’ framing. Some users pushed back, arguing that the layoffs reflected changing reader behaviour rather than elite indifference.

“He didn’t fire them because he couldn’t afford them. He fired them because nobody’s reading them,” one post said, suggesting the paper needed to confront why large sections of its output were no longer attracting paying audiences.

Others said companies have the right to restructure, even as they acknowledged the optics of cutting newsroom jobs alongside high‑profile luxury spending. “It’s fair for the public to question priorities,” one user wrote, “but financial sustainability still matters.”

The Bezos question

Over the years, the paper expanded digital subscriptions and invested in newsroom growth, but has more recently faced the same pressures affecting news organisations globally: declining traffic, slower subscription growth, and rising costs.