The New York Times and Washington Post just got caught covering up something huge about the Venezuela raid
Donald Trump's military operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro stunned the world.
The secrecy surrounding the raid became a major talking point.
But the New York Times and Washington Post just got caught covering up something huge about the Venezuela raid.
President Trump ordered the daring military strike that captured Maduro and his wife early Saturday morning after months of planning.
More than 150 aircraft hammered Venezuelan air defenses before Delta Force commandos swooped in on helicopters to grab the socialist dictator from his fortified compound in Caracas.
And now Americans just learned the shocking truth about who knew what and when.
Major newspapers sat on classified intelligence to protect the operation
The New York Times and Washington Post learned about Trump's secret raid hours before it happened, according to Semafor.
Both papers made the decision to withhold what they knew until after American forces completed the mission.
White House officials warned the news organizations that publishing details about the operation could endanger U.S. troops on the ground.
The papers agreed to stay silent despite their usual hostility toward President Trump on domestic political issues.
"The decisions in the New York and Washington newsrooms to maintain official secrecy is in keeping with longstanding American journalistic traditions," Semafor reported.¹
This cooperation between Trump's team and major media outlets represents a stunning departure from the constant leaking and opposition that defined much of his first term.
Trump approved the mission at 10:46 p.m. Friday night, and the operation commenced just hours later under cover of darkness.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth praised the raid as a "massive joint military and law enforcement" operation that lasted less than 30 minutes.
The military precision and total secrecy became major selling points as Trump and his team celebrated the successful capture.
The death toll the media didn't want Americans to know about
But the newspapers' decision to protect American troops came with a dark side the establishment media downplayed.
U.S. airstrikes killed at least 40 people during the operation, according to The New York Times' own reporting published after Maduro's capture.²
The death toll included both Venezuelan military personnel and civilians caught in the crossfire.
One airstrike hit a three-story apartment building in Catia La Mar, a poor coastal area west of Caracas.
The strike killed an 80-year-old woman named Rosa González and seriously wounded another civilian, according to the Times' reporting.
Venezuelan officials confirmed casualties among both civilians and military personnel but initially declined to provide specific numbers.
The newspapers waited several hours after Trump approved the mission before reporting anything about the raid.
Their decision showed they valued American military lives over transparency about civilian casualties in a foreign country.
This calculation raised serious questions about media priorities and what information the American people deserve to know in real time.
The papers that leaked everything suddenly discovered "ethics"
Wait, let's talk about what just happened here.
The New York Times and Washington Post spent four years of Trump's first term leaking every classified detail they could get their hands on.
They published CIA operation details. They leaked phone calls with foreign leaders. They revealed intelligence sources and methods. All to damage Trump and undermine his presidency.
But now for this offensive military strike that killed 40 people including an 80-year-old grandmother in her apartment, and suddenly these papers discover journalistic ethics?
They sat on the story to "protect American troops."
Give me a break.
Here's what really happened: The same media outlets that leak classified information when Trump pursues America First policies suddenly became helpful when he pursued a policy the establishment actually wants.
And it’s clear both parties’ establishments – no matter what bloviating Democrats are doing now – wanted action in Venezuela.
Or at least Maduro out of the way so America oil giants could return to the concessions they were kicked out of years ago.
Trump told Fox News he watched Delta Force operators storm Maduro's compound "literally, like I was watching a television show."
Trump even admitted after the raid that America would "run" Venezuela and "get the oil flowing the way it should be."
Run Venezuela. Get the oil. Where have we heard that before?
Maduro certainly isn’t a good guy.
And the good news is he’s out of power and, for now at least, the Trump administration hasn’t fully cribbed from the same neocon playbook that turned Iraq into a decades-long disaster.
We aren’t “running” Venezuela.
This hasn’t turned into a nation-building exercise, at least not yet.
Trump’s team hasn’t pushed to completely purge every government official in Venezuela that were employed under the Maduro regime like was done in Iraq where tens of thousands of government officials were suddenly put on the street to cause havoc and exact revenge on Americans.
There aren’t thousands of young American men whose boots are currently on the ground, and there may not be as long as the government plays ball and allows American interest back into the resource rich country.
And to his credit Trump was completely honest about getting the oil. Something he also said about Syria during his first term – although he did put boots on the ground there and they remain to this day.
So this may not turn into another of the endless foreign adventures that Trump campaigned against.
His voters rejected endless foreign wars and nation-building disasters because that’s not putting America First.
It’s very much up in the air at this point but it could still play out badly for all but the most elite who will almost certainly make a lot of money no matter what.
But what happens if Venezuelans still refuse to play ball?
What happens if the country breaks out in civil war as factions compete to grab power alongside new multi-national partners – and you can bet it’s not just American corporations who will demand a piece of the pie.
But what is virtually certain is that the mainstream media elites’ cooperation wasn't about protecting troops.
It was about protecting a foreign intervention policy the establishment of both parties support.
When Trump has done things Americans did elect him to do — secure the border, end wars, challenge globalism, cut government, and hold Deep State bad actors accountable — the Times and Post leak everything to stop him.
¹ Max Tani and Shelby Talcott, "New York Times, Washington Post held off on reporting Venezuela raid," Semafor, January 4, 2026.
² "40 killed in U.S. airstrikes on Venezuela, report says," Xinhua, January 3, 2026.
³ Fox News, "Maduro flown to New York City after Venezuela attack," January 4, 2026.
