The Wall Street Journal Has Gone Completely Woketard
Monday, December 22, 2025
There used to be a clear understanding about what the Wall Street Journal was and what it wasn’t.
At one time WSJ was trusted and serious. It was a business-minded, economically grounded, and culturally restrained paper. Even readers who disagreed with its editorial stance understood that the WSJ operated in a different lane than lifestyle outlets or activist rags. It went without saying.
But now, that clarity is gone.
Over the past few years, the Journal’s news division has begun publishing stories that feel completely disconnected from the brand it spent decades building. The tone and the subject matter have totally shifted. And the professional instincts that once separated the WSJ from the rest of the media have been totally wiped out.
After a series of fake news articles that attacked President Trump and his staff, along with some very questionable “woke-style” stories, many are wondering if the Wall Street Journal has made a deliberate rebrand that readers never wanted.
That question is precisely what sparked this X thread making the rounds, which zeroed in on a recent WSJ feature that left many longtime readers scratching their heads.
Does the Journal’s news division still understand the audience it’s supposed to serve?
People don’t know that the News division of the WSJ (walled off from Editorial) is as woke and libtarded as it gets. One has to ask: Did they systematically exclude white men from employment these last 10 years?
This article was written by someone named Vaishnavi Nayel Talawadekar with photography and video by someone named Lucy Hewett.
We need to talk about the WSJ.
Apparently this woman was hired from Vogue India. The Vogue India to WSJ pipeline.
Reporting on gay throuples from… Bangalore?
People don’t know that the News division of the WSJ (walled off from Editorial) is as woke and libtarded as it gets.
One has to ask: Did they systematically exclude white men from employment these last 10 years? pic.twitter.com/q93vaALs30
The criticism isn’t coming out of left field. The “throuple article” reads less like serious business journalism and more like Teen Vogue lifestyle content.
But that’s not all.
It feels like there’s a much broader editorial shift that began after leadership changes inside the newsroom, when WSJ hired its first female editor-in-chief. Emma Tucker joined WSJ in 2023. Since then, she has approved and published multiple fake news stories that prioritize TDS over verification.
Emma pushed forward with a highly disputed story tying President Trump to an Epstein letter, even though she was directly warned that the story was fake. Emma ignored the warning, and that wasn’t just bad journalism; it also triggered a lawsuit.
🚨BREAKING: President Trump calls out the Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch for publishing a FAKE letter tying him to Epstein — after being warned directly it was false.
They printed it anyway. Now Trump is suing them ALL: 🔹 WSJ 🔹 NewsCorp 🔹 Murdoch 🔹 Editor Emma Tucker
Trump says this is another disgusting, desperate hit piece from a once-great paper that’s now a “filthy rag.”
“If this Epstein lie were true, it would’ve been leaked by Comey, Brennan, or Crooked Hillary YEARS ago.”
What do you think about this? ⬇️ 🇺🇸
🚨BREAKING: President Trump calls out the Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch for publishing a FAKE letter tying him to Epstein — after being warned directly it was false.
They printed it anyway. Now Trump is suing them ALL: 🔹 WSJ 🔹 NewsCorp 🔹 Murdoch 🔹 Editor Emma Tucker… pic.twitter.com/qbkzXE97i6
And when you add in other fake news reports, like the false claim involving Pete Hegseth’s wife that was publicly refuted by officials, the concern over what’s happening to the WSJ becomes clearer.
This story is simply not true.
Jenn Hegseth has never attended a meeting where sensitive information or classified information was discussed. https://t.co/rmUzaFecbX
Those types of sloppy stories were a turning point for many readers who had already begun to lose confidence in the paper’s judgment.
At the same time, while at the WEF, Tucker reluctantly acknowledged that the media no longer controls information the way it once did. She’s frustrated that the public no longer treats legacy outlets as unquestioned gatekeepers of truth.
That frustration matters because it suggests a mindset shift inside the institution. Now skepticism from readers is treated like a problem to manage, instead of a sign to reverse course.
“We owned the news, we owned the Gatekeepers, we very much owned the facts”
Speaking at a WEF Davos Forum WSJ Editor in Chief Emma Tucker isn’t happy that the Corporate State Sponsored Elites have lost the monopsony information.
“We owned the news, we owned the Gatekeepers, we very much owned the facts”
Speaking at a WEF Davos Forum WSJ Editor in Chief Emma Tucker isn’t happy that the Corporate State Sponsored Elites have lost the monopsony information. pic.twitter.com/OOplPCDwAS
Put together all these moments, and they point to something deeper than just bad “woke” headlines or editorial goof-ups. They suggest a newsroom that is consumed by DEI and woke ideology, thanks to the reckless anti-Trump female in charge.
