Criticism from a federal judge led to the withdrawal of subpoenas that sought to force three New York Times journalists to reveal their sources. These subpoenas were related to articles about President Trump’s Air Force One jet, gifted by Qatar. The incident unfolded in U.S. District Court, with Judge Arun Subramanian showing clear frustration with government attorneys.
This event takes place during a period when the Trump administration is challenging news organizations whose coverage it opposes and intensifying efforts to curb leaks within the government. Previously, the Justice Department had withdrawn similar subpoenas targeting journalists from The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal.
Judge Subramanian highlighted that subpoenas to journalists should only be used as a last resort. He emphasized that subpoenas should be “the last step” in an investigation. The government’s attempt to issue these subpoenas without exhausting other options was criticized for misinterpreting legal procedures and First Amendment protections.
“Subpoenas are the last step, not the first step, but the last step,”the judge remarked.
In response to the judge’s sharp rebuke, the Justice Department expressed disagreement. They claimed the judge overstepped by preventing the grand jury from hearing critical testimonies in a national security investigation. They asserted that those leaking classified information remain targets in the ongoing investigation.
A Justice Department lawyer, Sean Buckley, defended the government’s actions, attributing errors to inadvertence. He admitted mistakes, such as errors in seeking records for relatives of the journalists.
During the public hearing, the Times’ lawyers challenged the legitimacy of the grand jury subpoenas and sought phone records of journalists and their relatives. They argued that the government acted in “bad faith” by not informing journalists about the incoming subpoenas and bypassed its protocols.
The Justice Department, however, insisted that reporters were not targets but those leaking sensitive information were. They claimed to have adhered to internal regulations before pursuing the subpoenas.
The government’s carelessness in handling personal data raised concerns, risking the exposure of sensitive information unrelated to journalism. One subpoenaed phone record belonged to a mental health professional, potentially compromising client confidentiality.
In a final rebuke, Judge Subramanian requested assurance that such incidents would not recur, citing an instance where an FBI agent served a subpoena to a journalist at his home during a family movie night. His comment drew laughter in the courtroom.