How Jeff Bezos fell out of favour in Washington

Jeff Bezos’ Washington standing falls amid shift to loyalty-driven politics.

When Jeff Bezos bought The Washington Post in 2013 and later a historic mansion in the heart of Washington, D.C., many believed he would become a defining figure in the city’s elite social and political circles. Bezos, the billionaire founder of Amazon, seemed poised to revive the golden age of Kay Graham — hosting glittering salons that brought together policymakers, journalists, and business leaders in an atmosphere of intellectual exchange.

For a time, the capital's establishment eagerly embraced the idea. But today, Bezos' presence feels like a missed opportunity and, in some circles, a bitter disappointment. His once-revered status has eroded, and the transformation of both Bezos and Washington itself tells a larger story about the city’s changing rules of influence, Politico reported.

A promising beginning that never materialized

In 2016, Bezos bought a grand 17,000-square-foot mansion — a former museum designed by the architect of the Jefferson Memorial — for $23 million in cash. Expectations soared that he would become a social power broker, breathing new life into Washington’s high society. Yet neighbours today report the house is almost always dark, with Bezos visiting only a handful of times each year.

Similarly, Amazon’s much-hyped "HQ2" project in Arlington, Virginia — once expected to bring 50,000 jobs and transform the region’s economy — has fallen short of its grand promises. Eight years after the announcement, only about 8,000 employees work there, and the iconic "Helix" headquarters building remains a vacant lot. Arlington County recently approved temporary use of the space for a high school, underscoring the anticlimax.

“There’s some disappointment,” said Eric Cassel, president of the Crystal City Civic Association.

A shift in Bezos’ public persona

Bezos’ standing in Washington has taken a marked downturn in recent years. Initially praised for defending the press and revering civic traditions, Bezos has since been accused of political opportunism. His decision to kill a Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris and dictate a pro-market editorial stance revealed an openly ideological side that contrasted with his earlier image as a steward of independent journalism.

His appearances at Donald Trump’s inauguration, and Amazon’s deal to produce a $40 million documentary on Melania Trump, only deepened suspicions. Once lauded for championing democracy, Bezos is now viewed by many Beltway insiders as another billionaire willing to cozy up to power for business advantage.

Washington’s rules have changed

While Bezos himself has changed, so too has the environment he operates in. In the 2010s, the city still rewarded wealthy individuals who showed bipartisan decorum, philanthropy, and respect for civic institutions. Bezos fit that mould perfectly — championing “Democracy Dies in

Darkness” at The Washington Post, attending elite gatherings like the Alfalfa Club, and cultivating an image of civic responsibility.

But the Trump era — especially his second term following his 2024 reelection — has upended those norms. Today’s Washington rewards ideological loyalty, media partisanship, and public displays of allegiance far more than quiet reverence for institutionalism.

Billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg and Peter Thiel are now buying D.C. mansions not to host bipartisan soirées, but to align themselves visibly with the centres of political power. As former Washington Post editor Cameron Barr put it, "The mechanics of how to 'work with Washington' have changed."

In this new world, Bezos’ earlier strategies of civility and nonpartisanship look outdated. His pivot toward a more transactional and ideological approach reflects a keen understanding of Washington’s evolving dynamics.

The future of The Washington Post — and Bezos’ legacy

The turmoil at The Washington Post mirrors Bezos’ broader struggles. Respected journalists have departed, editorial morale has suffered, and even former loyalists like Martin Baron now criticize Bezos for prioritizing political expediency over journalistic independence.

Some voices in Washington argue that Bezos should sell the Post, warning that his ownership risks further damaging the paper’s credibility. Yet others caution that the alternative could be even worse, given the new power structures shaping Washington.

Ultimately, Bezos’ story in Washington serves as a reminder: It wasn’t just that Bezos changed — the city’s rules changed too. The Washington that once celebrated reverence for democracy and impartiality has given way to a more combative, loyalty-driven era.

Bezos’ fall from grace isn't simply a personal failure; it reflects the capital’s broader transformation — and the uncomfortable realisation that the old Washington many revered may no longer exist.