Subtitles section Play video
An American aid convoy, engulfed in flames,
at a border crossing between Colombia and Venezuela:
The scene has become a critical flashpoint
in the political and economic crisis gripping the country.
Senior U.S. officials immediately
seized on the incident, blaming President Maduro
and his supporters for intentionally
torching the convoy.
But an investigation by The Times
calls this conclusion into serious question
and shows that U.S. officials raced to judgment
without the full facts.
How did we get here?
The Venezuelan crisis came to a head in early 2019,
when opposition leader Juan Guaidó declared himself
president in a bid to unseat Nicolás Maduro, whose
authoritarian rule and economic mismanagement
resulted in searing poverty.
Backed by the U.S.,
Guaidó mobilized his followers
to bring American aid into Venezuela.
But Maduro blocked border crossings and denied entry.
On Feb. 23,
four aid trucks arrived at a bridge on the Colombian side
of the border.
Guaidó supporters cleared a path
and drove the trucks toward Venezuela.
Security forces repelled them, firing tear gas and rubber bullets,
and the aid trucks got stuck on the bridge.
The Colombian government released
this annotated footage of the standoff.
They circle the Venezuelan police near the trucks
before the fire breaks out.
The implication appears to be that the Maduro regime caused
the fire.
But note the time stamp in the footage they circulated:
It suddenly jumps ahead by 13 minutes and misses
the critical moments leading up to the fire.
We obtained previously unseen TV footage
that fills this gap and tells a more complicated story.
So let’s back up the TV footage
and see what happened.
A small group of protesters starts throwing
rocks and Molotov cocktails.
We’ll focus on this one protester.
Here we see him throwing two Molotovs toward police.
Let’s look at the scene again.
Four trucks are stranded on the bridge.
The protester approaches from here, behind the third truck.
He launches one Molotov.
But the second one separates and the burning rag
veers off toward the trucks — not the police.
Let’s fast forward a little, and we’ll synchronize
the security footage.
We can see that a fire has taken
hold on one of the trucks.
This is just 30 seconds after the burning rag
landed in this area.
This sequence of events shows the fire was most likely
started by an errant Molotov, not by Maduro security
forces.
In minutes, the cargo is ablaze.
the cargo is ablaze that as this journalist
As this journalist turns the corner to get a better angle,
she takes the same route as the protester
who threw the Molotov and points her camera
in the direction the rag went, where a fire is now blazing.
This was the start of the fire that
spread rapidly and consumed three trucks.
Both police and protesters scrambled to contain the scene.
As the chaos was unfolding,
the incident quickly escalated into a political firestorm.
A Venezuelan journalist tweeted this report,
blaming Maduro.
Twelve minutes later, Senator Marco Rubio
retweeted the unsubstantiated claim.
National security adviser John Bolton weighed in soon after.
And then U.S.A.I.D. administrator Mark Green
claimed that Maduro had ordered the burning.
Secretary of State Pompeo tweeted out the same visuals
that evening.
None of the U.S. officials offered
any definitive evidence supporting their claim.
They doubled down on Sunday talk shows:
“There’s a sick tyrant, Maduro, who’s
denying food to starving Venezuelans and medicine
to sick Venezuelans; burning trucks with …
this is the worst of the worst of a tyrant.”
And officials continue to cite the burning
trucks at the U.N.
Security Council.
“Armed gangs, thugs and criminals
released from prisons were mobilized
to control the border.
Their actions led to the burning
of humanitarian assistance rather than its protection.”
It’s true that Maduro has a horrific human rights record
and that he deploys armed gangs called colectivos
to terrorize the opposition.
But in this specific incident, our analysis
shows U.S. officials used unverified claims to spin
their side of the story.
Officials we contacted either did not comment
or failed to provide evidence supporting their claims.
What happened on the bridge is a classic example
of how misinformation spreads online.
A rumor or unproven claim is made.
It’s amplified by influential people.
Mainstream media brings it to the masses.
“Venezuelan national guardsmen under orders from President
Nicolás Maduro attacked two aid trucks yesterday,
lighting them on fire.”
And in this case, there were real-life consequences.
“Effective today, the United States
will impose additional sanctions on regime officials.”
And those new sanctions were triggered in part
by the burning of aid trucks on the bridge.