The Justice Department withdrew subpoenas seeking testimony and records from three New York Times journalists after a federal judge challenged whether prosecutors had exhausted other investigative options and warned that sanctions could follow.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
The Justice Department has withdrawn grand jury subpoenas issued to three New York Times reporters after a federal judge sharply questioned the government’s handling of a national security investigation involving alleged classified information about a replacement Air Force One.
U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian said during a July 23 hearing that he would have granted the newspaper’s request to quash the subpoenas had prosecutors not withdrawn them. He emphasized that compelling testimony or records from journalists should occur only after the government has demonstrated that the information cannot be obtained elsewhere.
“Subpoenas are not the first thing you do; they are the last thing you do,” Subramanian said.
The Justice Department issued the subpoenas July 10 after the Times reported alleged security concerns involving an aircraft donated by the Qatari government for presidential use. The report said the plane lacked advanced defensive features, including anti-missile capabilities, and alleged that the Secret Service urged President Donald Trump to continue using the existing Air Force One when he departed a NATO summit in Turkey earlier this month.
Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and Trump’s nominee to become the next director of national intelligence, authorized the subpoenas. During the hearing, Subramanian pressed government lawyers to explain what investigative steps had been taken before targeting the journalists, citing protections intended to prevent violations of the First Amendment.
The judge said the department’s approach had turned the law “on its head” and raised the possibility of sanctions against the prosecutors involved.
“When you see something like this, if this were a civil proceeding, what I would normally do is ask the parties to show causes why sanctions should not be issued,” Subramanian said.
The Justice Department disputed that characterization and accused the judge of interfering with a legitimate grand jury investigation. A department spokesperson said Subramanian threatened government attorneys with sanctions unless the subpoenas were withdrawn and prevented prosecutors from “presenting the meticulous process of this investigation.”
“The grand jury has a right to hear testimony from all material witnesses in a federal criminal investigation,” the spokesperson said. “This judge’s conduct overrides clear longstanding principles and common sense-blocking the grand jury from receiving core evidence in a national security investigation.”
Although the subpoenas were withdrawn Thursday, the Justice Department said the underlying inquiry would continue. Prosecutors maintained that their objective was to identify and pursue government officials who may have disclosed classified information, not to prosecute the reporters who published it.
“Make no mistake, this investigation remains ongoing, and we will pursue justice against those threatening national security by leaking classified information, a serious federal crime,” the spokesperson said.
The Times had moved July 15 to invalidate the subpoenas, arguing that the demands threatened press freedom and were broader than necessary. A motion unsealed July 20 revealed that prosecutors had also sought telephone records belonging to the journalists and some members of their families.
The newspaper said two of the subpoenas requested records dating to Jan. 1, 2026, months before the July articles that purportedly triggered the investigation. Its attorneys argued that the expansive period suggested prosecutors were searching beyond the Air Force One reporting for information about the journalists’ confidential sources.
“Two of the subpoenas seek records beginning on January 1, 2026, long before the events that are purportedly the basis for the Department’s investigation,” the Times wrote. “That timeframe strongly suggests that the Department is using this investigation not to focus on any purported concerns arising from the July 8 and 9 articles, but instead to forage for information about the Journalists’ source relationships more broadly.”
David McCraw, senior vice president and deputy general counsel for the Times, denounced the subpoenas July 11 as an “attempt to prevent the public from knowing what is happening in their country by intimidating journalists from doing their jobs.”
The Justice Department responded that the government has a responsibility to prevent officials entrusted with classified material from disclosing it without authorization.
“To be clear, reporters are not the targets; those leaking classified information are,” the department said.
Clayton defended the decision during his July 15 confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee. He said the Southern District of New York had followed established procedures intended to protect journalists and the First Amendment.
“I’m confident that the procedures that we have in place to protect the First Amendment and protect the freedom of the press and not result in intimidation of journalists or the like were followed,” Clayton said.
The withdrawal ends the immediate effort to compel testimony and records from the three reporters, but it does not close the investigation into the alleged disclosure of classified information. The dispute now leaves unresolved questions over how far federal prosecutors may go when investigating government leaks that become the basis of national security reporting.
Original article
Comments