The US Media's Disastrous Failure to Condemn Trump's Venezuela Invasion
Donald Trump's brazen invasion of Venezuela has been met with a deafening silence from the mainstream media, with many outlets either failing to report on the situation or actively downplaying its significance. This is not just another foreign policy crisis; it's a stark reminder of the power and influence that the US government wields over other nations.
The media's failure to connect the dots between Trump's actions and the implications for international law and sovereignty is nothing short of alarming. By describing the invasion as an "operation" or a "capture," rather than an act of war, mainstream media outlets are essentially giving the green light for future US interventions without adequate scrutiny.
This pattern of stenography and deference to the administration's claims is eerily reminiscent of George W Bush's regime change operation in Iraq. The justification for that disastrous intervention was built on a transparent lie about the presence of weapons of mass destruction, which had no basis in reality. Trump's removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro is similarly premised on a false narrative about electoral illegitimacy and corruption.
The consequences of this kind of thinking are catastrophic. In 2003, the US ousted Saddam Hussein, leading to a nearly two-decade debacle that killed almost 5,000 American troops, cost more than a trillion dollars, destabilized an entire region, and helped incubate movements far more violent than the regime it replaced.
This time around, the media's failure to hold Trump accountable has been even more egregious. The New York Times and Washington Post knew in advance about the invasion but chose not to report on it, ostensibly to avoid "endangering U.S. troops." Yet, the administration gave no advance notice to Congress, violating constitutional norms.
The Constitution is clear: invading a foreign country and kidnapping its president and first lady is an act of war. Trump did not have the unilateral authority to launch such actions without congressional approval, which he did not seek. The media's failure to describe the invasion as an act of war has effectively normalized this kind of behavior for US leaders.
Language matters because language shapes legitimacy. If it isn't a war, then it doesn't require debate. If it isn't an invasion, then it doesn't violate international law. If it isn't a coup, then it doesn't implicate the United States in overthrowing a sovereign government.
The Washington Post's editorial board has taken one step in the right direction by calling the invasion "illegal and unwise." However, the reporting pages of the Times have not followed suit. The Post has instead published glowing editorials praising the attack as a "bold move" and an "unquestionable tactical success," using language that is chillingly reminiscent of justifications for previous US interventions.
The media's failure to interrogate Trump's actions has also led to a lack of scrutiny on the true motivations behind the invasion. Trump himself has been explicit about his views, arguing that the US should be free to "run" Venezuela and impose its own brand of democracy. This is a clear revival of the Monroe Doctrine, stripped of diplomatic pretense and rebranded as personal credo.
The damage caused by the media's failure is done. The frame had already been set, with outlets choosing the words preferred by the Trump administration. As Adam Johnson noted at The Intercept, "when faced with how to frame the first draft of history, the media has simply chosen the words preferred by the Trump administration."
Trump's own words have made it clear that he is open to strikes against multiple countries, including Mexico, Colombia, Cuba, Iran, and Greenland. This kind of rhetoric is a recipe for disaster, and it's up to the media to hold him accountable.
Even conservative voices have sounded alarms, with George Will reminding readers of Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn" rule: You break it, you own it. Candace Owens has blasted the "hostile takeover" as CIA-backed regime change fundamentally incompatible with "America First." Steve Bannon has also warned that extracting Maduro without dismantling his regime could spark civil conflict and regional instability.
It's time for the media to take a stand against Trump's expansionist project and hold him accountable for his actions. The future of international relations depends on it.
Donald Trump's brazen invasion of Venezuela has been met with a deafening silence from the mainstream media, with many outlets either failing to report on the situation or actively downplaying its significance. This is not just another foreign policy crisis; it's a stark reminder of the power and influence that the US government wields over other nations.
The media's failure to connect the dots between Trump's actions and the implications for international law and sovereignty is nothing short of alarming. By describing the invasion as an "operation" or a "capture," rather than an act of war, mainstream media outlets are essentially giving the green light for future US interventions without adequate scrutiny.
This pattern of stenography and deference to the administration's claims is eerily reminiscent of George W Bush's regime change operation in Iraq. The justification for that disastrous intervention was built on a transparent lie about the presence of weapons of mass destruction, which had no basis in reality. Trump's removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro is similarly premised on a false narrative about electoral illegitimacy and corruption.
The consequences of this kind of thinking are catastrophic. In 2003, the US ousted Saddam Hussein, leading to a nearly two-decade debacle that killed almost 5,000 American troops, cost more than a trillion dollars, destabilized an entire region, and helped incubate movements far more violent than the regime it replaced.
This time around, the media's failure to hold Trump accountable has been even more egregious. The New York Times and Washington Post knew in advance about the invasion but chose not to report on it, ostensibly to avoid "endangering U.S. troops." Yet, the administration gave no advance notice to Congress, violating constitutional norms.
The Constitution is clear: invading a foreign country and kidnapping its president and first lady is an act of war. Trump did not have the unilateral authority to launch such actions without congressional approval, which he did not seek. The media's failure to describe the invasion as an act of war has effectively normalized this kind of behavior for US leaders.
Language matters because language shapes legitimacy. If it isn't a war, then it doesn't require debate. If it isn't an invasion, then it doesn't violate international law. If it isn't a coup, then it doesn't implicate the United States in overthrowing a sovereign government.
The Washington Post's editorial board has taken one step in the right direction by calling the invasion "illegal and unwise." However, the reporting pages of the Times have not followed suit. The Post has instead published glowing editorials praising the attack as a "bold move" and an "unquestionable tactical success," using language that is chillingly reminiscent of justifications for previous US interventions.
The media's failure to interrogate Trump's actions has also led to a lack of scrutiny on the true motivations behind the invasion. Trump himself has been explicit about his views, arguing that the US should be free to "run" Venezuela and impose its own brand of democracy. This is a clear revival of the Monroe Doctrine, stripped of diplomatic pretense and rebranded as personal credo.
The damage caused by the media's failure is done. The frame had already been set, with outlets choosing the words preferred by the Trump administration. As Adam Johnson noted at The Intercept, "when faced with how to frame the first draft of history, the media has simply chosen the words preferred by the Trump administration."
Trump's own words have made it clear that he is open to strikes against multiple countries, including Mexico, Colombia, Cuba, Iran, and Greenland. This kind of rhetoric is a recipe for disaster, and it's up to the media to hold him accountable.
Even conservative voices have sounded alarms, with George Will reminding readers of Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn" rule: You break it, you own it. Candace Owens has blasted the "hostile takeover" as CIA-backed regime change fundamentally incompatible with "America First." Steve Bannon has also warned that extracting Maduro without dismantling his regime could spark civil conflict and regional instability.
It's time for the media to take a stand against Trump's expansionist project and hold him accountable for his actions. The future of international relations depends on it.
I'm seriously gutted by the US media's lack of coverage on Trump's invasion of Venezuela 
It's like they're just going through the motions, spewing out watered-down reports that barely scratch the surface of what's really happening there 
The mainstream outlets are basically letting the administration get away with war crimes without any consequences 
Newsflash: this is NOT a "bold move" or a "tactical success" 
It's an act of aggression that disregards international law and sovereignty
The truth is, we're being fed lies, propaganda, and half-baked narratives by the Trump administration 
We deserve better from our media.
I'm so tired of the MSM being so biased towards Trump 
... I mean, come on, an "operation" instead of an act of war? That's not journalism, that's propaganda! And don't even get me started on the Washington Post's recent glowing editorials 
. Can't they just stick to reporting facts instead of fawning all over Trump's ego? 
- Mainstream media is failing to report on the US invasion of Venezuela, instead following Trump's narrative, which is alarming considering what happened in Iraq under Bush! 
[image of Grumpy Cat with a "WHAT IS HAPPENING?" caption] 
[GIF of a clock ticking, with a red X marked through it]
[image of a newspaper headline reading "Fake News!"] 
[Image of Donald Trump's face with a megaphone and a "BS" stamp on it] 
I'm totally freaking out about this US Media Fail 
! Like, what's going on? They're basically enabling Trump's aggressive moves without questioning them. It's like they're saying "go for it" and not checking the moral compass. This isn't just a Venezuela thing; it's a slippery slope to more US invasions and who knows where that'll lead? 
The media needs to get its act together and start asking tough questions instead of letting Trump set the agenda. And don't even get me started on the language they're using – "operation" or "capture"? Give me a break! It's an invasion, plain and simple. We need more critical thinking and less spin doctoring from our so-called news outlets. 
... newsflash: if you're a journalist, it's your JOB to call out the admin's BS 
and it's not just the language they're using, it's the fact that they're basically giving him a free pass to do whatever he wants without any consequences 
. I mean come on, does anyone remember what happened in Iraq when Bush did something similar? 
. it's time for a change, media outlets need to get back to their roots and start holding those in power accountable 
. It feels like the US is just ignoring the whole situation, which is crazy considering how big a deal this could be 
.
. I mean, if Trump's doing something that's essentially an invasion, shouldn't they at least try to tell people what's going on? 
.
.
... like, what's going on? We can't just let Trump run around doing whatever he wants and expect everything to be okay 
.
... "operation" instead of "invasion"... what a difference! It's like, we're not supposed to be paying attention or anything 
. We need more of that kind of journalism, you know? 
. Like, Trump can just do whatever he wants and nobody calls him out on it 
... we need ppl who are brave enough to speak truth to power and not just follow the narrative