https://www.nature.com/nature/articles?type=editorial
Many of the editorials seem approximately apolitical, e.g. "Get childhood immunizations back on track after COVID" or "Protecting the ocean requires better progress metrics". People of most any political stripe could have written them. If the editorials were all like this, Nature would look impressively unbiased.
Then there are a bunch of editorials that are obviously political, but in a science-adjacent sort of way. "Equity must be baked into randomized controlled trials" has a very pious vibe to it, though thankfully it also has some obvious points about RCT design thrown in. "Europe must not backslide on climate action despite war in Ukraine" contains some legitimate information, but its message would not play well for most of the ideological spectrum. At one point there's an article titled "Science must overcome its racist legacy" and subtitled "We are leading Nature on a journey to help decolonize research and forge a path towards restorative justice and reconciliation."
Finally, there's a category of editorial that's just taking a stand on [insert current hot-button topic here] and sprinkling in enough science mentions to lend it an air of authority. The endorsement of Joe Biden falls squarely in this category (I read the whole thing to make sure), as does the condemnation of the overturn of Roe v. Wade.
So, yes: Nature's editorial section is a completely one-sided ideological monoculture. You can tell that it's mostly one-sided just by scanning the article titles, but the true magnitude becomes apparent when you read the articles themselves: there's no serious attempt made to persuade, nor to rebut the usual counterarguments. It's unmistakably preaching to the choir, and I can't help but think that this reflects a lack of people at Nature willing or able to play devil's advocate.
Not sure how much this affects the non-editorial part of Nature, but man, it makes me suspicious. Which is very bad for Nature's credibility. If I were in charge, I think I would either get rid of the editorials entirely or move them to a semi-adversarial back-and-forth format like the monthly discussions at Cato Unbound (which has a strong ideological bent but has a format that prevents it from being one-sided.)