Following the recent U.S. military intervention in Venezuela, the Trump administration offered a rare expression of gratitude to the press. The media received a “thank you,” an unusual gesture from the administration.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged the responsible actions of news outlets that were privy to the operation targeting Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro before it unfolded. These organizations refrained from reporting on the mission prematurely, thereby not compromising its success.

This recognition was significant, especially because Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had previously justified imposing stringent new press guidelines on Pentagon journalists by citing concerns about the media’s handling of sensitive information. These restrictions led many mainstream news outlets to withdraw their Pentagon correspondents rather than comply with the new rules.

During an appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” Rubio explained that the administration chose not to inform Congress about the mission beforehand due to fears of leaks, emphasizing operational security as the main reason for this decision.

“In truth, several media outlets received leaks about the impending action and chose to withhold the information,” Rubio stated. “We are grateful for that decision, as it potentially saved lives, including those of Americans.”

Word of the operation had leaked in advance, yet the media’s discretion played a crucial role in maintaining its integrity.

Semafor, citing “people familiar with communications between the administration and news organizations,” reported that The New York Times and The Washington Post had both learned of the raid in advance but held off reporting on it to avoid endangering U.S. military personnel. Representatives for both outlets declined comment to The Associated Press on Monday.

Withholding information on a planned mission for that reason is routine for news organizations, said Dana Priest, a longtime national security reporter at the Post who now teaches at the University of Maryland. Even after the fact, the Post has asked government authorities about whether revealing certain details could endanger people, she said.

When The Atlantic magazine editor Jeffrey Goldberg was inadvertently included in a text chain last spring where Hegseth revealed information about a military attack in Yemen, the journalist did not report on the events until well after U.S. personnel was out of danger and the information had been thoroughly checked out.

Most Americans learned of the Venezuela attack in the predawn hours of Saturday when President Donald Trump announced it on his Truth Social platform upon completion.

While The Associated Press did not have advance word that the operation would happen, its journalists in Venezuela heard and observed explosions taking place there, and that was reported on the news wire more than two hours before Trump’s announcement. The U.S. involvement was not made clear until Trump’s post, however.

Decisions on publication have many dimensions

Hegseth, in defending rules that restrict reporters’ movements and reporting in the Pentagon, told Fox News last year that “we have expectations that you’re not soliciting classified or sensitive information.” The Times last month filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the rules.

Decisions on whether to report information that could put lives or a mission in danger often involve high-level discussions between editors and government officials. But Priest stressed that in a country with freedom of the press, the ultimate decision on whether to report the information lies with the news organization.

Generations ago, President John F. Kennedy persuaded editors at the Times not to report when it learned in advance of a U.S.-backed attack by Cuban exiles on Fidel Castro’s forces at the Bay of Pigs in Cuba. The mission proved a monumental failure and a Times editor, Bill Keller, later said that Kennedy expressed regret that the newspaper had not reported on what it had known because it could have prevented a fiasco.

Many mainstream journalists covering the military and national security have extensive experience dealing with sensitive issues, Priest said. But there’s a difference, she said, between reporting information that could put someone in danger and that which could prove embarrassing to an administration.

“The reporters are not going to be deterred by a ridiculously broad censorship edict by the Trump administration,” Priest said. “They’re going to dig in and work even harder. Their mission is not to curry favor with the Trump administration. It’s to report information to the public.”

___

David Bauder writes about the intersection of media and entertainment for the AP. Follow him at and https://bsky.app/profile/dbauder.bsky.social