U.S. Media Refuses to Call Trump’s Venezuela Attack an Act of War

What would Donald Trump have to do for the U.S. media to frame what he is doing in Venezuela as an act of war?

This isn’t a rhetorical question. It’s an actual inquiry, the pursuit of which can reveal a lot about how U.S. media’s default posture is state subservience and stenography. In the past few months, President Trump has committed several clear acts of war against Venezuela, including: murdering — in cold blood — scores of its citizens, hijacking its ships, stealing its resources, issuing a naval blockade, and attacking its ports. Then in a stunning escalation on early Saturday morning, the administration invaded Venezuela’s sovereign territory, bombing several buildings, killing at least 40 more of its citizens, kidnapping Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife from their bed, and announcing they will, henceforth, “run” the country.

And yet none of these acts of brazen aggression, violence, and violations of international law have, in any sustained or meaningful way, been referred to as acts of war, a coup, or invasion in U.S. mainstream media reporting.

This episode seems to indicate that the president can do almost anything in the context of foreign policy, and the media will still overwhelmingly adopt language that is flattering and sanitizing to the administration when describing what has unfolded. This dynamic reached a new low Saturday morning, when the U.S. media rushed to frame the administration’s unprovoked attack as, at worst, a “ratcheted up” (CBS News) “pressure campaign” (Wall Street Journal) and, as was more often the case, some type of limited narcotics police “operation” (CNN).

For the past several months, U.S. media has been working overtime to provide pseudo-legal cover for Trump’s aggression against Venezuela, a task the White House itself has barely bothered to feign interest in. It began last month when both the New York Times and CNN referred to “international sanctions” on Venezuelan oil in their reporting of Trump’s hijacking and theft of Venezuelan oil ships. But there was only one problem: There are no international sanctions on the Venezuelan oil trade, only U.S. sanctions.

The New York Times even cited Mark Nevitt, a professor of law at Emory University and a former Navy lawyer, to say the U.S. hijacking Venezuelan oil tankers was legal because they were enforcing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea without noting, rather importantly, that the U.S. never signed the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. But it needed to feel vaguely rules-based and international-y, so unilateral U.S. dictates were passed off as ersatz international law.

This pro bono PR for Trump also came in the form of several articles and headlines that heavily implied Venezuela had broken some type of international law by trading its oil and evading U.S. piracy, complete with the breathless reports into Venezuela’s so-called “dark fleet” or “shadow fleet” — which, again, is only “dark” and “shadow” to one of the 193 U.N. member states: the United States. Despite Trump paying little attention to international law or even bothering to reference it — all while proudly boasting of stealing Venezuelan oil and trumpeting the Monroe Doctrine — the idea that the U.S. could be engaging in such shameless might-makes-right power projection was apparently too unseemly to mention. Instead, unilateral U.S. claims, almost in unison, became international law through vibes.

Left unmentioned is that it is indeed quite unusual for countries to follow the laws of other countries, and Venezuela is under no more moral or legal obligation to follow U.S. law than the U.S. is under a moral or legal obligation to follow Venezuelan law, or Iranian law, or Serbian law. By trading oil and refusing to submit to U.S. piracy, Venezuela was breaking no Venezuelan law and no international law — a fact almost never mentioned by anyone in the U.S. media.

Pseudo-Legal Framing

In the past 60 hours, U.S. media’s adoption of this pseudo-legal framing has grown even less tenable, relying heavily on sterile, White House-friendly language that conspicuously avoids any mention of the U.S. wantonly violating international law, beyond a throwaway paragraph or “is this legal?” explainer where the answer is invariably, “Who’s to say?”

From the first minutes news of the airstrikes and Maduro’s abduction broke, every major outlet — CNN, The Associated Press, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, New York Times, Washington Post — all simultaneously called it a “capture” or “arrest,” terms typically reserved for criminals or fugitives, despite the fact that, as with Venezuela’s “illegal” oil trading, only one out of the 193 U.N. member states, the United States, had issued an arrest warrant for Maduro. Maduro is not fleeing any international criminal sanction.

Similarly, Trump’s bombing and invasion of a sovereign country suddenly became an “escalating pressure campaign” or an “operation,” rather than an act of war. From the Washington Post to CNN to the New York Times, not even “inside” detailed reports of the bombing, killing of 40 people, kidnapping of their head of state, or a military assault seemed to demand using the words “act of war,” “invasion,” or “coup” even once.

The dictates of the United States government, even if “bipartisan,” must not become the de facto positions of U.S. media. But time and time again, Trump’s unilateral acts in clear violation of international law and norms become the media’s preferred framing. Just as crime reporters mindlessly adopt “copspeak,” military reporters — despite their recent dust-ups with the Pentagon over access — have almost completely, to the reporter, adopted Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s “police action” framing.

It’s not as if the American media is incapable of using clear and martial language that conveys the aggression and violence at work. The New York Times, for example, routinely used the words “war” and “invasion” when first reporting on Vladimir Putin’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Putin, like Trump, referred to his aggression in euphemistic policing terms, calling it a “special military operation.” But U.S. media correctly mocked this term and refused to adopt it, instead calling it what it was: an act of war.

Obviously, the two conflicts are not the same in scope or objective. The attacks do not appear to be ongoing as Maduro’s Vice President Delcy Rodríguez has assumed control, but the White House threats demanding submission and promise of blockade continue. Still, it shows the New York Times is more than capable of using the language of aggression when describing acts of aggression — which Trump’s Venezuela attack no doubt was.

There are, of course, exceptions (almost all in opinion pieces), such as “Trump’s Risky War in Venezuela” by Conor Friedersdorf in The Atlantic or “Trump’s Venezuela Coup Sets a Destabilizing Precedent” by Jonah Shepp in New York magazine. But overwhelmingly, the U.S. media and its purportedly straight reporters have adopted wholesale the White House’s pseudo-legalistic, limited framework of an “operation” to “arrest” Maduro.

Indeed, the New York Times’ reporting did not refer to anything Trump did over the past 60 hours as an “act of war.” And, as Semafor reports, the New York Times, joined by the Washington Post, knew in advance about Trump’s unprovoked attack but decided to sit on the story — ostensibly to “avoid endangering U.S. troops.” But how this reason is functionally different than avoiding endangering the lethal efficacy of U.S. military aggression isn’t clear. Suffice it to say, the New York Times and Washington Post seem to have felt no duty of care for the more than 40 Venezuelans killed in the attack.

To the Times’ credit, their editorial board did call the invasion “illegal and unwise” and, unlike their reporters, did use the term “act of war.” But this clear language is nowhere to be seen in the Times’ journalistic output. Even more cartoonish was CBS News, fresh off its goofy, homespun right-wing rebrand. Tony Dokoupil, the evening news anchor newly installed by editor-in-chief Bari Weiss, sat down for a groveling interview with Hegseth, where the anchor pushed back on basically none of his assertions. The also-newly-MAGA Washington Post published a fawning editorial praising the attack as “one of the boldest moves a president has made in years” and claiming “the operation was an unquestionable tactical success.”

What we’re left with is a de facto state media, one in lockstep with an administration that’s been hostile to the slightest amount of adversarial media. So Trump doesn’t “threaten,” he “builds pressure.” He doesn’t invade, he launches an “operation.” He doesn’t carry out a coup, he “captures” Maduro. Editors may tell themselves words like “abducted,” “coup,” “war,” and “invasion” are too loaded, too icky, or too ideologically charged. But what’s important to understand is that any term carries particular ideological weight. When faced with how to frame the first draft of history, the media has simply chosen the words preferred by the Trump administration.

U.S. media reflexively adopting the most euphemistic terminology used by those in power when discussing a clear-cut case of military aggression against a sovereign country isn’t journalism, it’s court stenography that only serves to sanitize and provide the vague impression of legal justification for acts of war that are clear-as-day violations of international law.

If reporters wish to adopt the Trump government’s framing, they should at least be open about it, disclose that they’re happy to carry water for the administration in exchange for access and prestige, and lean into this role. If they’re going to maintain the pretense of independence and journalistic skepticism, they should maybe, at least every now and then, seek to complicate these euphemisms, ask themselves why they use a different set of terms when it comes to Russian military aggression, and stop lending the dictates of one out of 193 U.N. member states — much less one led by a man who openly talks about “taking oil” — the sheen of ad hoc international legal authority when no such international legal authority exists.