Automattic says Matt Mullenweg is again chairman and CEO with board support.
Why it matters: The reversal ends a sudden leadership clash at one of the best-known WordPress companies. It could affect WordPress governance, product direction and confidence in Automattic’s management.
- Automattic told TechCrunch on Sept. 12, 2026, that Mullenweg had returned as chairman and CEO.
- TechCrunch reported on Sept. 9 that the board had placed Mullenweg on paid leave and named CFO Mark Davies interim CEO.
- Automattic’s board page lists Mullenweg as founder and CEO, with him on the board since 2005 and CEO since 2014.
- Automattic says it is remote-first, has more than 1,400 employees and runs WordPress.com, WooCommerce and Tumblr.
Automattic said Matt Mullenweg is back as chairman and CEO and that the board supports him, reversing a reported move days earlier that had pushed him into leave.
TechCrunch first reported on Sept. 9 that Automattic’s board voted to place Mullenweg on paid leave of absence and named CFO Mark Davies interim CEO. That report described internal Slack messages and a board vote, but the public record in the dossier does not independently confirm every detail of the board action.
Automattic’s governance page lists Mullenweg as the founder and CEO, and says he has been on the board since 2005 and CEO since 2014. The company says it is remote-first and describes itself as focused on publishing, commerce and messaging on the open web.
The episode matters because Automattic sits at the center of the WordPress ecosystem. Any instability around its founder-CEO can raise questions about governance, product direction and how the company manages its broader mission.
The dossier does not say whether the board composition changed, whether a formal vote was rescinded, or what specific terms led to the reversal.
By the numbers
- 1,400+ - Automattic says it has more than 1,400 employees.
- 2005 - Mullenweg has been on Automattic’s board since this year.
- 2014 - Automattic says Mullenweg has been CEO since this year.
Yes, but: The public reporting in the dossier does not independently confirm the full scope of the board dispute, so the governance shift should be treated cautiously.