Major news organizations like the New York Times and the Washington Post decided not to report on the recent U.S. raid that led to the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro. Secretary of State Marco Rubio indicated that this choice likely helped to protect American lives.
During a recent broadcast, Rubio expressed gratitude to the media for maintaining silence about the covert mission until U.S. troops had completed their withdrawal from Venezuela. He commended those who prioritized safety over the desire for breaking news during a high-risk military operation.
Both newspapers were aware of the impending attack before it commenced late Friday but opted to refrain from publicizing it to safeguard American forces, according to a report from Semafor.
“The main reason for this is operational security,” Rubio told ABC’s “This Week,” discussing why this significant endeavor remained hush-hush.
“Revealing it would have jeopardized the lives of those involved. A lot of the media received leaks about the operation and held back for that reason. We’re thankful they did, otherwise, we could have lost lives—American lives,” he shared with host George Stephanopoulos.
This kind of acknowledgment from a senior official is somewhat rare, especially given President Donald Trump’s frequent criticisms of mainstream media, which he has often labeled as untrustworthy.
Just prior to Christmas, Trump had criticized the Times, labeling it a “grave threat to our national security” after they published a detailed piece regarding his ties to the late Jeffrey Epstein.
Historically, U.S. news outlets have sometimes held back or delayed reporting sensitive information at the government’s request if it poses risks to safety or security.
A notable instance of this occurred in 1961 when the Times learned about the CIA’s plans for the Bay of Pigs invasion but chose to delay its report following cautions from the Kennedy administration about potentially compromising the mission.
In 2004, the Times found out about the NSA’s warrantless surveillance program authorized by the Bush administration after the 9/11 attacks, but editors held off on publishing the story due to concerns from the White House that revealing such information could affect national security efforts.
Eventually, the report was published in December 2005, citing a change in circumstances and public interest.
Semafor also noted that the Post’s newsroom had chosen to refrain from reporting on the upcoming strike, and Rubio’s statement suggested that this cautious approach could have been life-saving.
The organization had previously worked with the Obama administration regarding the 2011 mission that led to Osama bin Laden’s death, avoiding discussions about U.S. military actions until the operation was complete.
Various news organizations have since admitted they were aware that significant events were unfolding but chose not to disclose specifics while American troops were still active in Pakistan.
A mix of formal censorship and informal press cooperation with the government was quite customary during World War II, with newspapers often holding back information on troop movements and military strategies.
The New York Post has reached out for comments from the White House, as well as the Times and the Post.
