The Department of Justice withdrew subpoenas targeting New York Times reporters on Thursday after a federal judge sharply questioned the government’s legal justification for demanding the journalists’ grand jury testimony and phone records.
U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, who heard arguments on the Times’s motion to quash the subpoenas, told prosecutors that “subpoenas are the last step — not the first step, but the last step.” The judge noted that the news organization had raised “profound First Amendment and free press issues” in its legal challenge.
The subpoenas, issued on July 10 by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and authorized by acting attorney general Todd Blanche, targeted journalists who had reported on security vulnerabilities in the 747-8 aircraft given to the United States by Qatar and retrofitted as Air Force One. According to the Washington Post, the Times reported that for one leg of a recent overseas trip, Trump opted to fly on an older Air Force One jet after the Secret Service expressed concern that the Qatari plane lacked sophisticated antimissile capabilities and other security features.
The Justice Department also sought phone and text-messaging records for several of the reporters and in some cases their family members, according to court filings. Prosecutors claimed the reporting “indicated potential leaks of classified or national defense information” provided to the Times while the president and senior officials were flying in foreign airspace during a time of hostilities with a foreign adversary.
David McCraw, senior vice president and deputy general counsel for the Times, said in a statement that the news organization was “pleased that the government finally conceded that the subpoenas violated the law, but they should never have been issued in the first place.” McCraw added: “The Times and our journalists will continue to report and seek the truth without fear or favor. We will not be deterred in the face of tactics like these.”
The Times’s legal team argued that the subpoenas failed to comply with strict legal precedents governing when prosecutors may compel journalists to testify. The news organization contended the subpoenas were being used as a tool of harassment, retaliation, and intimidation, and that they conflicted with fundamental First Amendment principles. Judge Subramanian noted during Thursday’s hearing that prosecutors had conceded they did not take all available investigative steps before issuing subpoenas to the reporters.
This marks the third major instance in 2026 in which the Trump administration has issued and then withdrawn subpoenas targeting reporters. In June, the Justice Department withdrew similar subpoenas to Washington Post and Wall Street Journal reporters after those news organizations challenged them in federal court. The Post reported that the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal had waged a secret legal fight to stop the government from subpoenaing their reporters.
Legal experts and First Amendment advocates have warned that efforts to compel journalists to disclose confidential sources could chill reporting on matters of public interest. One of the Times reporters who was subpoenaed said in a court declaration that his sources were aware of the legal battle and becoming more reluctant to share information. Federal appeals courts have ruled that disclosure of a journalist’s confidential sources “may be ordered only upon a clear and specific showing” that the information is highly relevant, critical to the investigation, and not obtainable from other available sources.
The subpoenas were sought by Jay Clayton, the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan, who has been nominated by Trump to serve as director of national intelligence. Clayton’s deputy, Sean Buckley, justified the subpoenas in court filings by citing national security concerns, but prosecutors acknowledged in Thursday’s hearing that they had not pursued other investigative avenues first.
The Justice Department indicated it may seek to issue new subpoenas with the court’s authorization. However, Judge Subramanian’s sharp questioning of the government’s legal reasoning and the DOJ’s concession that it had not exhausted other investigative methods suggest any future attempt would face significant judicial scrutiny.
Sources
- The Washington Post — Federal judge’s questioning and DOJ withdrawal of subpoenas, details on reporting about Air Force One security concerns, family member phone records, and legal precedent
- The New York Times — Initial subpoena reporting, Times filing motion to quash, and withdrawal announcement
- ABC News — Judge Arun Subramanian’s statement that he would quash subpoenas if DOJ refused to withdraw them
- NBC News — DOJ agreement to withdraw after judge questioned why government hadn’t pursued other investigative steps
- NPR — DOJ dropping subpoenas demanding grand jury testimony and phone records
