August 24, 2025
US Navy flexing in the Caribbean
The news sparked widespread speculation about a possible U.S. military intervention in Venezuela to destabilize or oust President Nicolas Maduro, for whom the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump had offered a US$50 million reward for information leading to his capture.
The UK-based Reuters news agency has played a significant role in fueling an atmosphere of tension, grounded in the alleged imminence of a U.S. military operation on Venezuelan soil.
Its approach has bordered on psychological operations and propaganda. Through its “revelations,” Reuters has sought to reinforce a narrative of conflict and intimidation against Venezuela, operating as a media arm of the hard-line Republican agenda led by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Reuters has attempted to give an appearance of credibility to information that remains unofficial in strictly institutional terms — Pentagon has not provided specific details about the deployment or its objectives — with the aim of bolstering a maneuver that is still confined to certain factions within the Trump administration.
On Aug. 19, Reuters reported that three U.S. destroyers — the USS Gravely, USS Jason Dunham and USS Sampson — would be in waters near Venezuela within 36 hours for possible selective attacks, under the justification of responding to the threat of “drug cartels.” The operation would include 4,000 sailors and Marines, spy planes, warships and one attack submarine, according to Reuters.
Just hours after publication, however, evidence began to emerge that the “revelation” lacked real foundations, according to a fact-checking report by La Tabla. This Venezuelan outlet said the USS Sampson was in the eastern Pacific, the USS Gravely was operating in the Gulf of Mexico, and the USS Jason Dunham had been out of service for more than a month at Naval Station Mayport in Florida.
The distance and deployment patterns made it virtually impossible for the ships to be part of a unified operation toward Venezuela. The 36 hours passed, and nothing happened.
Can it be assumed that Reuters arbitrarily disregarded the principle of cross-checking sources before publishing? That seems unlikely. It would have taken the agency little time to verify the status of the ships with a simple search.
This omission can only be explained by the intended purpose of the publication and the interests it served. Even though it quickly became clear that the deployment of those three ships was unfounded, the “revelation” heightened tensions and enabled an escalation of rhetoric from Washington, voiced by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt.
The damage was already done: concern among public opinion and an escalation in tone among certain U.S. political actors.
Then, on Aug. 20, Reuters published another “revelation,” this time citing anonymous sources familiar with the matter. It announced a new deployment, but of amphibious ships — the USS San Antonio, USS Iwo Jima and USS Fort Lauderdale — carrying more than 4,000 troops and 2,000 Marines. The deployment was reportedly set to reach waters near Venezuela over the weekend.
The news significantly increased the climate of instability, uncertainty and concern. Soon after, it was confirmed that the USS Iwo Jima had returned to Naval Station Norfolk to avoid Hurricane Erin. Once again, Reuters was exposed for publishing unverified and politically driven information.
In this case, however, there was a particular detail. In addition to the USS Iwo Jima incident, Reuters used the same elements from an Aug. 18 Department of Defense release announcing the deployment of its Rapid Response Force to carry out “global operations.”
That official statement listed the same ships and the same number of personnel on board. But unlike Reuters, the Pentagon did not provide specific information about geographic, military, or political objectives.
As a result, Reuters took public information unrelated to Venezuela and turned it into an alleged “exclusive,” framing it as evidence of imminent military intervention to amplify tensions inside and outside the country. In a sense, Reuters could be faulted for violating basic journalistic standards.
But a critical reading suggests something more deliberate: the omissions and distortions shaping its “revelations” and “exclusives” appear to have been planned with a concrete political objective, tied to an offensive by hawkish elements within the Trump administration eager to create conditions for aggression, whether through overt military action or covert operations.
Source: teleSUR – La Tabla