The New York Times recently came under fire for publishing an opinion column by Bret Stephens advocating for the overthrow of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, reviving criticisms about the newspaper’s history of platforming calls for military intervention abroad.

Stephens’ recent pieces, “Depose Maduro” and “The Case for Overthrowing Maduro,” represent the latest in a troubling pattern at the prestigious publication, which has previously given space to similar pro-war arguments with devastating consequences. Critics point to the newspaper’s role in the lead-up to the Iraq War as a particularly egregious example.

In early 2003, columnist Thomas Friedman argued in the Times that invading Iraq would be “right to do” and would serve as beneficial “shock therapy” for the Arab world. Friedman characterized regime change as “the prize” worth pursuing. The subsequent war resulted in hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths and widespread regional destabilization, yet Friedman faced little professional consequence for his advocacy.

Media accountability advocates note that while reporter Judith Miller eventually left the paper after publishing false information about Iraqi weapons programs that bolstered the Bush administration’s case for war, other columnists who championed the invasion have remained fixtures at the publication.

The Times has since published numerous opinion pieces advocating military action against other nations, including columns titled “Bomb North Korea, Before It’s Too Late” and “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.” Stephens himself has frequently called for bombing Iran before turning his attention to Venezuela.

Analysis of Stephens’ arguments for overthrowing Maduro reveals significant logical and factual weaknesses. His claim that Maduro operates as a drug kingpin appears contradicted by the very sources he cites. A report from InSight Crime, which Stephens references, actually portrays Maduro as attempting to control powerful drug trafficking elements rather than directing them.

Stephens’ primary justification rests on characterizing Venezuela as an “importer and exporter of instability,” largely due to its relationships with China, Russia, and Iran. Critics point out that by this logic, any country with alliances opposed to U.S. interests could become a target for regime change.

International law experts note that Stephens’ columns make no reference to legal justifications for military intervention. The UN Charter explicitly prohibits the use of force against sovereign nations without Security Council authorization, a principle Stephens appears to disregard entirely.

Media critics suggest that the Times’ willingness to publish such thinly argued calls for war reflects a troubling institutional blindness to the consequences of promoting military aggression. They argue that despite the catastrophic outcomes of previous U.S. interventions, the paper has failed to establish meaningful editorial standards around advocacy for military action.

The controversy highlights ongoing tensions in American media about the responsibility publications bear when platforming voices calling for war. While the Times continues to produce vital reporting in many areas, critics argue that its opinion pages too often normalize extreme interventionist positions with potentially devastating human costs.

Some independent media outlets have begun campaigns encouraging readers to cancel their Times subscriptions in protest, offering alternative news sources that they claim provide more thoughtful coverage of international affairs without promoting military intervention.

As tensions with Venezuela continue, the debate surrounding Stephens’ columns serves as a reminder of media’s powerful role in shaping public perception and policy around questions of war and peace—and the real-world consequences when that influence is wielded irresponsibly.