On Thursday, Karen Attiah posed a question to her more than 600,000 social media followers. “Should I return to The Washington Post?” the former opinion columnist wrote, asking users to vote yes or no. The post served as an especially cryptic reminder of the unusual situation at the Jeff Bezos-owned paper: Nearly three months after an independent arbitrator ordered the publication to reinstate Attiah and award her full back pay after wrongly firing her last year, there was still no resolution to the process.

As of Sunday, there is finally an answer: Attiah won’t be returning to The Post. A spokesperson for the Washington-Baltimore News Guild confirmed to Status that it reached a settlement with the newspaper, bringing an end to the months-long dispute over her reinstatement. Attiah will not rejoin The Post in any capacity, though part of the settlement includes back pay ordered by the arbitrator, the union told me. The remaining settlement terms were not disclosed.

“There was still a chance to go back as of Thursday,” Attiah told Status of her decision. “I think I just didn’t feel safe returning and that I would be protected. It’s not just a job. It’s also about whether I could be able to do the journalism that I not only wanted to do, but that I think the readers deserved.”

Attiah also mused about whether Democrats’ electoral romp on Tuesday would prompt a cultural shift at the paper. “There’s always going to be a part of me that wonders, especially after seeing the midterm election results, about the alternative path if I could have done it,” she added.

The Post didn’t respond to a request for comment on the decision, nor did it respond to repeated inquiries from Status about the situation in the months since the arbitrator’s ruling.

But the resolution closes a particularly contentious chapter for the paper, which had remained publicly silent about Attiah's reinstatement since the arbitration ruling in August. While The Post previously said in an unsigned statement it would respect the arbitration process, it had offered no public update on whether it intended to bring the columnist back or award her the back pay. Behind the scenes, however, the union had remained engaged in negotiations with the newspaper over her future.

Attiah, of course, was hastily fired last year amid the backlash following the killing of Charlie Kirk, after she posted comments on social media about violence in America that didn’t explicitly name the right-wing activist. Post executives at the time, including former chief executive and publisher Will Lewis and then-opinion editor Adam O’Neal, fired her for “misconduct” without asking her to delete the posts first or giving her a chance to discuss the decision. A year later, the arbitration ruling came down in Attiah’s favor, as the arbitrator said the paper did not have “good and sufficient cause” to fire her.

Attiah, a veteran opinion columnist who had served as Global Opinions editor at the time of Jamal Khashoggi’s murder, had initially been hopeful to return to her perch at the storied newspaper. But she made clear, in a conversation with me shortly after the ruling was handed down in August, that she needed certain assurances to do so. Specifically, she wanted to know whether she would be permitted to write freely under the paper's leadership. Ultimately, she said, she did not get those assurances.

“While I remain proud of the victory, I came to the painful realization that returning to The Washington Post would come without the guaranteed freedom and institutional support to do what I loved: use my voice, seek truth, and serve readers,” Attiah wrote in a post on Substack announcing her decision on Sunday.

Indeed, the opinion section Attiah would return to is already undergoing another transition. O'Neal, the editor who helped orchestrate her firing and oversaw the section's rightward shift under Bezos’ ownership, has since departed the newspaper. During his tenure, The Post laid off opinion staffers, brought in more conservative voices, and invested in culture-war podcasts and video programming, part of a broader overhaul that alienated many inside the newsroom.

As Status previously reported based on audio we obtained, weeks before Attiah’s firing, O’Neal told her in a private meeting that her writing and social media presence were not consistent with his vision for the section. Attiah later characterized the meeting as evidence that the newspaper had been looking for a reason to push her out when it fired her.

“I still wish there were more answers about what exactly went down,” Attiah told Status. “But I tried to fight the good fight.”

The section is now being overseen by Mark Lasswell on an interim basis, though some internally believe he could be given the job permanently. It wouldn’t be the first time The Post would quietly make such a move: The paper recently installed Jeff D'Onofrio as its permanent publisher after he initially assumed the position on an interim basis. But the newspaper has not publicly indicated whether Lasswell will remain in the role or how closely the section will adhere to the ideological direction established under O'Neal. In any case, multiple people familiar with the situation have suggested to me that The Post was not exactly eager to bring Attiah back into the fold.

But the opinion desk’s transformation also raises questions about which voices The Post has deemed acceptable under its new leadership. One person familiar with the situation questioned whether Attiah's political views were meaningfully different from those of other columnists, including Dana Milbank and David Ignatius, who remained at the paper. The person also pointed to the dramatic decline in Black representation on the opinion pages, from six columnists to one, as a troubling development for the section.

For Attiah, the settlement brings an end to a painful fight with an institution where she spent more than a decade building her career. And she told me she is still coming to terms with the “consequential decision,” describing her emotions as “still raw.”

The latest episode of Power Lines is out.

In this week’s episode: We examine the fallout from Democrats’ blue tsunami in the midterms, as Donald Trump and Rupert Murdoch blame one another for the GOP’s bloodbath.

Plus, we break down what the results mean for some of Trump’s billionaire pals, like David Ellison, Elon Musk, and Mark Zuckerberg. Finally, was the media afraid to say what was really happening in the lead-up to Election Day? We discuss why coverage of the coming Democratic sweep didn’t seem to come through, even as the data and the context were all pointing in one direction.

You can watch on YouTube—or listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. If you enjoy the program, subscribe so you never miss an episode!

[Data via Box Office Mojo]