Headline Roundup • January 6th, 2026
Marco Rubio Thanks NYT, Washington Post for Holding Leaked Information on Venezuela Raids
Summary from the AllSides News Team
Secretary of State Marco Rubio thanked The New York Times (Lean Left bias) and Washington Post (Lean Left) for reportedly withholding leaked information about the US raid in Venezuela until US forces were safely out of the country.
The Details: Semafor (Lean Left) first reported on Saturday that the Times and the Post learned in advance of the US raid in Venezuela that led to the capture of President Nicolás Maduro but waited to report on it until after President Donald Trump announced it on Truth Social. Rubio said, "Frankly, a number of media outlets had gotten leaks that this was coming and held it for that very reason [operational security]. And we thank them for doing that or lives could have been lost. American lives."
Standard Operating Procedure: Associated Press (Left) wrote that after the operation in Venezuela, "the news media got something it has seldom heard from the Trump administration: a 'thank you.'" Dana Priest, a national security reporter at The Post, told AP that "withholding information on a planned mission for that reason is routine for news organizations." In addition to the recent operation in Venezuela, AP noted that last spring, Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg waited until all US personnel were safe before reporting that he was accidentally included in Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's Signal message chain about attacks in Yemen.
The Trustworthiness of Reporters: Jim Geraghty (Lean Right) wrote for National Review (Right), that while "many U.S. media institutions are interested in reporting news that the administration would not like them to report…very few American media institutions are interested in reporting news that would get U.S. service members killed." Geraghty went on to argue that though the Pentagon recently created new restrictions for reporters in the name of preventing risks to national security, New York Times and Washington Post made it clear with their decision to delay publication that individuals willing to put a "scoop" above national security and the safety of servicemembers are "few and far between."
Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.
Featured Coverage of this Story
In the wake of last weekend's U.S. military action in Venezuela, the news media got something it has seldom heard from the Trump administration: a "thank you."
Secretary of State Marco Rubio credited news organizations that had learned in advance about Saturday's strike that led to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro with not putting the mission in jeopardy by publicly reporting on it before it happened.
Rubio's acknowledgment was particularly noteworthy because Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has cited a mistrust of journalists' ability to responsibly handle sensitive information...
Joshua Roberts/Reuters
Back in October, the U.S. Department of Defense — yes, I know what the administration calls it, but check the Federal Register or the most recently passed appropriations bill — instituted a new set of rules that stated that Pentagon correspondents who "solicit" "classified national security information" or "controlled classified information" may be considered a security risk.
Although there is no single statute that provides criminal penalties for all types of unauthorized disclosures of classified information, disclosing classified information is almost always treated as a crime. That is, unless a...
.png)
