What would it take for the US media to frame Donald Trump's attack on Venezuela as an act of war? It's not a rhetorical question - it's an actual inquiry that can reveal a lot about how US media's default posture is state subservience and stenography.
In recent months, Trump has committed several clear acts of aggression against Venezuela, including murdering citizens, hijacking ships, stealing resources, issuing a naval blockade, and attacking ports. Yet none of these acts have been referred to as an act of war or invasion in US mainstream media reporting.
Instead, the media has framed the attack as a "ratcheted up" pressure campaign (CBS News) or a limited narcotics police operation (CNN). This dynamic is not new, but it has reached a new low with Trump's recent actions. The White House and Pentagon have yet to comment on the explosions and reports of aircraft over Caracas.
US media outlets like CBS News and Fox News have reported unnamed Trump administration officials confirming that US forces were involved in the attack. However, none of this language acknowledges the clear violation of international law and norms.
The New York Times has been particularly egregious in its reporting, citing Mark Nevitt, a professor of law at Emory University, to justify the US hijacking of Venezuelan oil tankers as legal under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. However, the US never signed this convention, and the language used by the media is deliberately vague and sanitized.
The term "operation" or "pressure campaign" has become a preferred framing for Trump's actions in Venezuela, rather than using clear and martial language that conveys the aggression and violence at work. This reflects a broader trend of US media adopting euphemistic language to describe Trump's actions, which are clearly violations of international law.
The Intercept's reporting on Trump's actions in Venezuela has been more accurate, but even then, the use of language like "pressure campaign" or "operation" instead of "act of war" or "invasion" is a missed opportunity to frame the situation accurately.
Ultimately, this reflects a broader problem with US media's coverage of Trump's actions - its refusal to acknowledge clear violations of international law and norms. 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.
But if they're going to maintain the pretense of independence and journalistic skepticism, they should 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.
The Intercept is fighting back against this trend, but we need your help. We're growing our reporting capacity to hit the ground running in 2026. Will you join us?
In recent months, Trump has committed several clear acts of aggression against Venezuela, including murdering citizens, hijacking ships, stealing resources, issuing a naval blockade, and attacking ports. Yet none of these acts have been referred to as an act of war or invasion in US mainstream media reporting.
Instead, the media has framed the attack as a "ratcheted up" pressure campaign (CBS News) or a limited narcotics police operation (CNN). This dynamic is not new, but it has reached a new low with Trump's recent actions. The White House and Pentagon have yet to comment on the explosions and reports of aircraft over Caracas.
US media outlets like CBS News and Fox News have reported unnamed Trump administration officials confirming that US forces were involved in the attack. However, none of this language acknowledges the clear violation of international law and norms.
The New York Times has been particularly egregious in its reporting, citing Mark Nevitt, a professor of law at Emory University, to justify the US hijacking of Venezuelan oil tankers as legal under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. However, the US never signed this convention, and the language used by the media is deliberately vague and sanitized.
The term "operation" or "pressure campaign" has become a preferred framing for Trump's actions in Venezuela, rather than using clear and martial language that conveys the aggression and violence at work. This reflects a broader trend of US media adopting euphemistic language to describe Trump's actions, which are clearly violations of international law.
The Intercept's reporting on Trump's actions in Venezuela has been more accurate, but even then, the use of language like "pressure campaign" or "operation" instead of "act of war" or "invasion" is a missed opportunity to frame the situation accurately.
Ultimately, this reflects a broader problem with US media's coverage of Trump's actions - its refusal to acknowledge clear violations of international law and norms. 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.
But if they're going to maintain the pretense of independence and journalistic skepticism, they should 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.
The Intercept is fighting back against this trend, but we need your help. We're growing our reporting capacity to hit the ground running in 2026. Will you join us?
I'm really disappointed that US media isn't using language like "act of war" or "invasion" when talking about Trump's actions in Venezuela 
. It's clear he's violating international law, and instead they're just watered-down versions like "pressure campaign". Like, what's the point of having a free press if you're not going to call it like it is? 
Trump's actions towards Venezuela are getting more aggressive by the day 
. I think the media needs to stop playing it safe and start calling out what's really going on. The use of terms like "pressure campaign" or "operation" is just a way of watering down the truth. We should be demanding clarity, not euphemisms. If Trump's actions are an act of war, then they should be framed as such 
US media's been way too soft on Trump's actions in Venezuela... like he's some kinda special snowflake 
. Trump's been escalating aggression against Venezuela for months & yet, none of the "mainstream" outlets have called it out as an act of war or even invaded the country - just a "ratcheted up pressure campaign" 
. It's all about stenography & state subservience. Even The New York Times is complicit in sanitizing Trump's actions by cherry-picking expert opinions to justify his hijacking of Venezuelan oil tankers... conveniently, the US never signed that UN convention anyway! 
. And don't even get me started on how they always frame Russian aggression as an act of war, but Trump's attacks are just a "pressure campaign" 
.
. We need more journalists who aren't afraid to use strong language and hold people in power accountable 
. And The Intercept's effort to fight back is a good start, but we need more voices like that speaking out against this kind of reporting 
.
. And that's what US media is lacking right now 
.
and yet they're just as bad if not worse 
. The New York Times is even citing some law professor to justify Trump's actions as being okay under international law 
. If we want to hold our media accountable for not calling out Trump's aggression accurately, we need more voices demanding change 
.
. We can't just sit back and watch our media perpetuate Trump's agenda without a fight 
. The fact that the media is more willing to sugarcoat his aggression than report on it like a real act of war is a major problem 
. And let's be real, if US media can't even acknowledge the lawlessness of Trump's actions in Venezuela, how do we know what they'd say about Russian or Chinese aggression? 
