The mass media’s blind spot in Trump’s escalation in Venezuela

What we are looking at is not just another foreign policy crisis; it is the construction of a permission structure for imperialism, built through shorthand and deference. Mainstream media coverage of Trump’s attack on Venezuela and the arrest of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, has not only failed to interrogate the Pentagon’s actions but has actively whitewashed them, presenting an act of war as a technocratic maneuver, a coup as a “capture,” and an invasion as an “operation.” Americans have seen this pattern before and the consequences have been catastrophic.

Like George W. Bush’s regime change operation in Iraq, Trump’s removal of Maduro is based on a transparent lie. In place of Bush and Dick Cheney’s weapons of mass destruction, Trump has made a jumble of claims about electoral illegitimacy, corruption and “hemispheric defense” that sound like post-hoc rationalization — and that the government didn’t care enough to come up with a logical or legal justification for a predetermined outcome.

The feeling of déjà vu is undeniable. In 2003, the U.S. ousted Saddam Hussein, sparking a nearly two-decade debacle that killed nearly 5,000 U.S. troops, cost more than a trillion dollars, destabilized an entire region and fueled movements far more violent than the regime it replaced. At the time, the American press largely went along with the Bush administration, amplifying official claims and marginalizing opposition voices.

This time as Semafor reportedThe New York Times and the Washington Post had advance notice of Trump’s unprovoked attack and chose to sit on the story, ostensibly to “avoid endangering American troops.” Yet the administration did not notify Congress in advance.

The Constitution is unequivocal: invading a foreign country and kidnapping the president and first lady is an act of war. The president does not have the unilateral authority to take such actions without congressional approval, which Trump did not request. That should have been the frame from the first headline to the last chyron.

Media outlets that have not described Saturday’s actions as an act of war are actively helping the administration change the facts in the wake of what the Pentagon called Operation Absolute Resolve. Language is important because language shapes legitimacy. If it’s not a war, there’s no need for a debate. If it is not an invasion, it is not a violation of international law. If it is not a coup, it does not mean that the United States is overthrowing a sovereign government.

To the credit of the New York Times editorial staff: called the invasion ‘illegal and unwise’ and used the term ‘act of war’. That distinction is important. But the Times reporting pages did not follow suit. The Washington Post, now openly drifting toward MAGA, published a fawning editorial praising the attack as “one of the boldest moves a president has made in years” and calling the operation an “indisputable tactical success”—a chilling phrase to apply to the violent overthrow of a foreign leader, especially when no one can say what comes next. Tracking down confirmed details about Venezuelan victims has proven virtually impossible. The Pentagon did not hold a press conference. Like Reuters’ national security correspondent Idrees Ali noted Historically, the Ministry of Defense would have informed reporters about X by now. “This Pentagon,” he said, “has been silent.”

On television, viewers were treated to a rotating cast of officials and experts who helped sell previous disasters. This time it is different, they emphasized. CBS Evening News anchor Tony Dokoupil, recently appointed by editor-in-chief Bari Weiss, gave a soft, almost reverent speech. interview with Pete Hegseth, and pushed back on virtually none of the Defense Secretary’s claims. On MSNOW, viewers were treated to a former US ambassador to Venezuela, James Story remembering them – without irony – that the US government considers Maduro’s most recent election to be illegitimate, as if that claim in itself were sufficient justification for an invasion. The same network then aired former UN Ambassador John Bolton defend Trump’s attack, as if one of the main architects of the second war in Iraq, represents sober wisdom rather than institutional failure. On Fox News, Will Cain hosts suggested that American imperialism is the true meaning of “America First.”

Do you want a sharper view of politics? Sign up for our free newsletter, Standing Rooms Only, written by Amanda Marcotte, now also available weekly on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.

Trump himself has been explicit about how he views this moment. Talking to reporters aboard Air Force One, he argued that the action in Venezuela is different from previous interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan because “it is in our area. The Donroe Doctrine.” The phrase is caricatured, but the ideology is deadly serious. It is a crass revival of the Monroe Doctrine, stripped of diplomatic pretenses and rebranded as a personal creed, one that treats the Western Hemisphere as an American possession. The New York Post, one of Trump’s favorite media, takes credit coining the term when “Donroe Doctrine” appeared on the cover a year ago, when Trump’s ambitions for Greenland made news.

The Monday morning headlines attempted to roll back the news media’s previous credulity. The Washington Post headline summed up the silent admission beneath the initial bravado: “Uncertainty Clouds America’s Plan to ‘Rule’ Venezuela.” The Associated Press described the events as “a reversal after President Donald Trump announced a day earlier that the US would govern Venezuela.” But the damage caused by the media’s failure had already been done. The frame had already been placed. Like Adam Johnson noted in The Intercept: “when faced with the question of how to frame the first draft of history, the media has simply chosen the words the Trump administration prefers.”

After a weekend of flattering reporting, Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One that he is open to attacks on Mexico, Colombia, Cuba, Iran and Greenland.

Even conservative voices have sounded the alarm. George Wil remembered readers of former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s “Pottery Barn” rule: you violate it, you own it. Candace Owens blasted the ‘hostile takeover’ while the CIA-backed regime change is fundamentally incompatible with ‘America First’. Even Steve Bannon, while praising the operation as “bold and brilliant,” warned on his podcast “War Room” that pulling out Maduro without dismantling the rest of his regime could lead to civil conflict and regional instability. “So this is part of the overall Hemispheric Defense, and are we going to clean up this mess in Latin America? Or is this just the neoconservatives pushing him to do it?” Bannon asked. That unease underlines how Trump’s escalation has prompted even his allies to reconcile spectacle with strategy.

Trump’s invasion has made clear that “America First” now functions less as a brake on military action than as a justification for using it for financial gain. He has openly promised to send oil companies to ‘make money for the country’. With such blatant motives, the press can question this relationship or help legitimize it. So far, too much of the mainstream media has chosen the latter.