US Media Refuses to Call Trump's Venezuela Attack an Act of War, Yet Again
What would Donald Trump have to do for the US 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, revealing how US media's default posture is state subservience and stenography.
President Trump has committed several clear acts of war against Venezuela, including murdering 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 "run" the country.
Yet none of these acts of brazen aggression, violence, and violations of international law have been referred to as acts of war, a coup, or invasion in US mainstream media reporting. 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.
In the past few months, US media has been working overtime to provide pseudo-legal cover for Trump's aggression against Venezuela. This 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 US sanctions.
The New York Times even cited Mark Nevitt, a professor of law at Emory University and a former Navy lawyer, to say the US 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 US 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 US dictates were passed off as ersatz international law.
This pseudo-legal framing has grown even less tenable in the past 60 hours, relying heavily on sterile, White House-friendly language that conspicuously avoids any mention of the US wantonly violating international law. Every major outlet simultaneously called it a "capture" or "arrest," terms typically reserved for criminals or fugitives, despite the fact that only one out of the 193 UN member states, the United States, had issued an arrest warrant for Maduro.
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."
The dictates of the United States government must not become the de facto positions of US media. But time and time again, Trump's unilateral acts in clear violation of international law and norms have been framed by the media as less severe. The American media is incapable of using clear and martial language that conveys the aggression and violence at work.
It’s not as if the US media is incapable of using clear and martial language that conveys the aggression and violence at work. The New York Times routinely used the words "war" and "invasion" when first reporting on Vladimir Putin's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. But Trump's Venezuela attack has been framed in a way that sanitizes his actions, providing pseudo-legal cover for what is clear-cut aggression against a sovereign country.
U.S. Media Reflexively Adopting Trump's Framing Raises Serious Questions
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 UN 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.
The US media's adoption of this pseudo-legal framing has consequences. It creates a de facto state media, one in lockstep with an administration that’s been hostile to the slightest amount of adversarial media. This approach erodes trust and undermines the ability of journalists to report on events as they unfold.
In short, if reporters wish to maintain their independence and skepticism, they should stop adopting the language preferred by those in power when describing clear-cut acts of aggression against a sovereign country.
What would Donald Trump have to do for the US 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, revealing how US media's default posture is state subservience and stenography.
President Trump has committed several clear acts of war against Venezuela, including murdering 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 "run" the country.
Yet none of these acts of brazen aggression, violence, and violations of international law have been referred to as acts of war, a coup, or invasion in US mainstream media reporting. 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.
In the past few months, US media has been working overtime to provide pseudo-legal cover for Trump's aggression against Venezuela. This 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 US sanctions.
The New York Times even cited Mark Nevitt, a professor of law at Emory University and a former Navy lawyer, to say the US 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 US 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 US dictates were passed off as ersatz international law.
This pseudo-legal framing has grown even less tenable in the past 60 hours, relying heavily on sterile, White House-friendly language that conspicuously avoids any mention of the US wantonly violating international law. Every major outlet simultaneously called it a "capture" or "arrest," terms typically reserved for criminals or fugitives, despite the fact that only one out of the 193 UN member states, the United States, had issued an arrest warrant for Maduro.
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."
The dictates of the United States government must not become the de facto positions of US media. But time and time again, Trump's unilateral acts in clear violation of international law and norms have been framed by the media as less severe. The American media is incapable of using clear and martial language that conveys the aggression and violence at work.
It’s not as if the US media is incapable of using clear and martial language that conveys the aggression and violence at work. The New York Times routinely used the words "war" and "invasion" when first reporting on Vladimir Putin's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. But Trump's Venezuela attack has been framed in a way that sanitizes his actions, providing pseudo-legal cover for what is clear-cut aggression against a sovereign country.
U.S. Media Reflexively Adopting Trump's Framing Raises Serious Questions
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 UN 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.
The US media's adoption of this pseudo-legal framing has consequences. It creates a de facto state media, one in lockstep with an administration that’s been hostile to the slightest amount of adversarial media. This approach erodes trust and undermines the ability of journalists to report on events as they unfold.
In short, if reporters wish to maintain their independence and skepticism, they should stop adopting the language preferred by those in power when describing clear-cut acts of aggression against a sovereign country.
US media's gotta get real about Trump's Venezuela shenanigans! If he's gonna do it, call it out as war 
. Trump is basically committing war crimes and stealing resources, but the media is just glossing over it 
. Newsflash: if you can't even call out Trump's aggression, how are we supposed to trust the media? 
The lack of accountability from media is concerning, especially when it comes to international law violations 
. Can't they just speak truth to power? 
it's wild how US media is so quick to play it safe with Trump's Venezuela antics 
vs Ukraine where Putin's invasion was clearly labeled as war & invasion 
the double standard is real 
and if they can't even be bothered to use clear language, how do we trust them to hold power accountable? 
newsflash: there's no international sanctions on venezuelan oil trade, but somehow that's not good enough for them. they need to sanitize trump's aggression so they can keep getting access to the white house 
. If they can't even be bothered to challenge Trump's blatant aggression, how can we trust them to hold him accountable when it matters most? 
. It's time for the media to take a stand and start using some real journalism, not just sycophantic fluff 
.
.
. Are they really that scared of getting labeled as "anti-American" or "anti-Trump"? Newsflash: reporting facts is not anti-American, it's American 
.
.
, eroding trust and undermining the ability of journalists to report on events as they unfold. We need more critical reporting, not less 
Or is it because they're too afraid of getting backlash from the administration? 
And yet, instead of saying that, they're using terms like "capture" or "arrest". That's just weird.
So why the double standard with Trump? 
. By adopting this sanitized framing, the media undermines its own credibility and erodes trust with its audience 
. It's essential for journalists to take a more critical stance and challenge the narrative when faced with clear-cut violations of international law 
. If US media is supposed to be a watchdog, then they need to start holding Trump accountable for his actions. It's not that hard to use strong language when describing clear-cut aggression against a sovereign country. We know what we're talking about here - the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, anyone? 
. If they can't even be bothered to use words like "act of war" or "invasion," then what are they doing? Reporters need to start taking a stand and questioning the administration's actions, not just parroting whatever PR spin comes out of Washington 
he's basically just stealing oil and violating borders left and right
but it's just not happening, and it's time someone spoke out about it 