Trump administration thanks the media for keeping silent before the attack that captured Maduro

Following the U.S. military action in Venezuela last weekend, the media received something they rarely hear from the Trump administration: a "thank you."

Secretary of State Marco Rubio blamed the media for learning in advance of Saturday's attack that led to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro for not having endangered the mission by reporting publicly before it happened. Rubio's acknowledgment was especially noteworthy because Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has cited distrust in journalists' ability to handle sensitive information responsibly as one of the main reasons for imposing new restrictive press rules on Pentagon reporters. Most mainstream media outlets have left positions at the Pentagon rather than accept Hegseth's policy.

You can also read: Trump's government eliminates four mandatory vaccines from the child schedule

Speaking on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, Rubio said that the Republican administration hid information about the mission from Congress in advance because "it will leak. It's that simple." But the main reason was operational security, he said. "Frankly, several media outlets had received leaks that this was going to happen and withheld it precisely for that reason," Rubio said. "And we thank them for doing so or lives could have been lost. American lives."

The anticipated news was corrected

Semafor, citing "people familiar with communications between the administration and the media," reported that both The New York Times and The Washington Post had learned of the raid in advance, but had refrained from reporting on it to avoid endangering U.S. military personnel. Representatives from both media outlets declined to comment to The Associated Press on Monday. Hiding information about a planned mission for that reason is common in the media, said Dana Priest, a veteran national security reporter at the Post who now teaches at the University of Maryland. Even after the fact, the Post has asked government authorities whether revealing certain details could endanger people, she said. When The Atlantic magazine editor Jeffrey Goldberg was inadvertently included in a message chain last spring where Hegseth revealed information about a military attack in Yemen, the journalist did not report on the events until long after the American personnel were out of danger and the information had been thoroughly reviewed. Most Americans learned about the attack in Venezuela in the early hours of Saturday, when President Donald Trump announced it on his Truth Social platform after it was completed.

Although The Associated Press had no advance notice that the operation would take place, its journalists in Venezuela heard and observed explosions occurring there, and that was reported in the agency more than two hours before Trump's announcement. However, the involvement of the United States was not clear until Trump's post.

Decisions about publishing have many dimensions

Hegseth, in defending the rules that restrict the movements and coverage of journalists in the Pentagon, told Fox News last year that "we hope you are not requesting classified or sensitive information." Last month, The Times filed a lawsuit to revoke the rules. "What the so-called legacy Pentagon press corps has shown is that it can act responsibly, as always, to protect the lives of the troops," said Barbara Starr, former CNN defense correspondent. "But perhaps even more importantly, it shows that the media does everything possible to continue covering the news outside of the control and endless messaging of Pete Hegseth." Decisions about whether to report information that could endanger lives or missions often involve high-level discussions between editors and government officials. But Priest emphasized that, in a country with freedom of the press, the ultimate decision on whether to report the information rests with the news organization.

You may be interested in:According to New York Times, Maduro's dances led the White House to advance the operation

Generations ago, President John F. Kennedy persuaded the Times editors not to report when he learned in advance of a U.S.-backed attack by Cuban exiles against Fidel Castro's forces at the Bay of Pigs, in Cuba. The mission proved to be a monumental failure, and a Times editor, Bill Keller, later said that Kennedy expressed his regret for not having reported what he knew because it might have prevented a fiasco. Many mainstream journalists who cover the military and national security have extensive experience in sensitive matters, Priest said. But there is a difference, he said, between reporting information that could endanger someone and that which could prove embarrassing to an administration. "Journalists are not going to be deterred by a ridiculously broad censorship order from the Trump administration," Priest said. "They are going to dig in and work even harder. Their mission is not to curry favor with the Trump administration. It is to inform the public."