Five journalists from the New York Times have received federal subpoenas ordering them to appear before a Manhattan grand jury, following their coverage of security problems with President Donald Trump’s new Qatari-donated aircraft.
Manhattan U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton issued the subpoenas on Friday, directing the reporters to testify Wednesday “in regard to an alleged violation of federal criminal law,” according to the Times.
Times Executive Editor Joe Kahn addressed the situation in an internal email on Saturday, which was reviewed by Reuters. He wrote that the five reporters were subpoenaed “after they reported on security shortcomings of the Qatari-donated jet that forced the president to use an older government plane for his recent international travel.” The new plane is a Boeing 747 that was refitted by defense contractor L3Harris Technologies.
The newspaper’s top attorney described the subpoenas as a brazen effort to intimidate journalists and pledged to challenge them. The Justice Department declined to confirm or deny the subpoenas but told Reuters on Friday that its focus was on those who leaked classified information — not on journalists themselves.
WHAT LEGAL PROTECTIONS DO JOURNALISTS HAVE?
Reporters actually have limited legal shields when it comes to federal subpoenas. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment — which protects press freedom — does not automatically allow journalists to refuse subpoenas, unless those subpoenas were issued in bad faith or meant to harass them.
Federal courts have since recognized a qualified protection that weighs factors such as whether the information sought is essential, whether it can be obtained through other means, and whether other considerations outweigh press freedom interests. That protection tends to be strongest in civil cases and weakest in criminal grand jury proceedings.
While New York and many other states have shield laws that protect journalists’ sources, no equivalent federal law exists — and state-level protections do not apply to federal subpoenas.
IS THIS KIND OF ACTION UNUSUAL?
Subpoenaing journalists is not something prosecutors can do casually — it requires high-level approval and must follow Justice Department guidelines. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have used subpoenas in leak investigations, but press freedom organizations say the current administration has gone further than past ones, including issuing subpoenas and search warrants against reporters from the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal. Critics also accuse the administration of using government authority and private lawsuits to pressure and intimidate news organizations. The administration has maintained its actions target leakers of classified information, not the journalists themselves.
HOW COULD THE TIMES FIGHT BACK?
The Times has indicated it plans to challenge the subpoenas. Possible legal strategies include asking a judge to throw them out as overly broad, issued in bad faith, or in violation of First Amendment rights.
The newspaper could also argue that the Justice Department failed to follow its own internal rules, which require prosecutors to determine whether the information is truly necessary, whether it can be found elsewhere, and whether they attempted to negotiate with the news outlet first. While those internal policies cannot be enforced in court, judges may factor them in when evaluating whether a subpoena is legitimate.
Notably, the Justice Department previously withdrew grand jury subpoenas against reporters from the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal after those outlets challenged them in sealed court filings. The government had sought information from the Post regarding its reporting on U.S. military action in Venezuela, and from the Journal about an article on warnings to Trump concerning a potential conflict with Iran, according to a New York Times report citing anonymous sources.
In January, press freedom advocates criticized the FBI for the rare move of searching a Washington Post reporter’s home during a leak investigation.
WHAT HAPPENS IF THE REPORTERS REFUSE?
If federal prosecutors grant the journalists immunity, they would lose their Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. At that point, refusing to testify could result in contempt charges — which carry the possibility of jail time or fines until the reporters comply. The Times could separately contest any contempt ruling in court.
