New York Times executive editor Joe Kahn said the paper did not withhold a story on the U.S. operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro at the Trump administration’s request, having not verified details about the operation before it transpired.
Kahn, in response to a question from a Times reader, acknowledged that the paper’s beat reporters had spoken to sources about “heightened preparations for bolder action against the Venezuelan leadership,” and he said they were aware of “the possibility that that planning could result in new operations.” He pointed to a Dec. 27 Times story that reported a possible plan for land operations by the Army’s Delta Force unit, the team that captured Maduro.
But Kahn disputed the idea that the paper had specific details about the operation to capture Maduro.
“Contrary to some claims, however, The Times did not have verified details about the pending operation to capture Maduro or a story prepared, nor did we withhold publication at the request of the Trump administration,” he said.
The remark came after Semafor reported that the Times and the Washington Post had learned of “a secret US raid on Venezuela” soon before the Jan. 2 operation began, but the two outlets held back reporting details of the effort for several hours after the administration warned that reporting could endanger U.S. troops. Semafor did not say that the papers knew of the administration’s specific intent to capture Maduro.
The New York Post followed up in citing a source that said the two papers were “tipped off” about the raid. Secretary of State Marco Rubio also appeared to confirm the Semafor report during an interview on ABC’s Jan. 4 episode of “This Week,” saying some outlets “had gotten leaks that this was coming and held it” to protect “operational security.”
The Post did not respond to an immediate request for comment on its handling of any reporter on a possible Maduro raid prior to it happening.
On the Jan. 4 episode of “The Daily,” Times national security correspondent Eric Schmitt described how reporters saw signals of a coming attack, though he did not suggest they were aware of the specific details or the timing.
Schmitt mentioned the paper was tipped off in the weeks preceding the raid that “some very specialized planes” were coming in, which are “designed to jam aircraft.” They’re also “used for surveillance,” he said, and “to bring in special operations forces. ”
“You wouldn’t bring this military hardware in if you weren’t planning to use it. That’s what analysts were telling me,” Schmitt continued, adding that it became a matter of not if, but when. “And so the clock was really starting to tick,” he said.
As Christmas approached, Schmitt said, “we started to see indications that some type of operation might be imminent,” but he noted there was very bad weather on the ground. “So we were kind of on pins and needles for several days, not knowing, you know, if this was actually gonna go forward,” he said.“The president still had to give his final approval for this. ”
In the reader response, Kahn said that the Times has previously consulted with the military on reporting when there are concerns that the paper’s work could endanger U.S. troops. But, he said, it makes its editorial decisions independently and that such conversations were “not relevant in this case.”
“Our reporting on the U.S. and Venezuela has provided the public, including Congress, with information they would not otherwise have,” he said. “In a democracy, the public needs independent, fair and verified reporting, and we consider that mission especially critical when it comes to coverage of the military.”
