The New York Times and Washington Post held back reporting a secret U.S. raid in Venezuela late Friday—once again siding with state secrecy over public accountability.
According to new reporting from Semafor, Both outlets reportedly delayed publication after the Trump administration warned that coverage might jeopardize troops—reviving a long history of elite media deferring to the government, even amid authoritarian overreach.
THE DETAILS: The raid led to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, with Trump officials bragging about its stealth. But the Pentagon’s success relied, in part, on media silence.
Even with Trump’s open hostility to the press—kicking reporters out of the Pentagon and demonizing journalists—these legacy outlets chose to comply. There was no legal gag order. Just a phone call.
THE BACKGROUND: This isn’t new. The Times delayed the NSA wiretapping story during the Bush years and softened coverage of the Bay of Pigs invasion in the ‘60s. But those decisions have aged poorly—and are now seen as deference to power at key moments of state overreach.
Now, in 2026, Trump is back in office, ICE is re-empowered, and the press is still falling in line.
WHY IT MATTERS: When newsrooms hold stories to avoid “interfering” with state power, they cross a line—from watchdogs to willing accomplices.
Journalists aren’t soldiers. They serve the public—not the president.
This raid wasn’t just about Venezuela. It was about control. Control of the press. Control of the narrative. And the liberal media—despite knowing better—once again chose silence.
WHAT’S NEXT: Expect more of this under Trump 2.0. More secret raids. More state-coordinated narratives. And more elite institutions playing along while democracy corrodes.
The question isn’t just whether this secrecy protected troops. It’s whether it enabled yet another authoritarian escalation without public scrutiny.
And the press said: “Yes, sir.”
It’s almost like capitalism will always side with fascism when profits and power are on the line.