The New York Times has filed a motion to quash subpoenas issued by the U.S. Justice Department, which sought to compel journalists to testify before a federal grand jury. The subpoenas follow reporting on security gaps in the new Air Force One, a Qatari-donated aircraft retrofitted at a cost of $400 million.
Justice Department Targets Sources of Air Force One Security Leaks
The U.S. Department of Justice served subpoenas to New York Times reporters last Friday, some of which were delivered directly to journalists’ homes. The government aims to identify individuals who leaked classified information regarding the security capabilities of the new presidential aircraft.
According to The New York Times, the reporting cited anonymous sources claiming the new jet lacked advanced security features, such as antimissile capabilities, found in older models. This reporting coincided with President Donald Trump using an older Air Force One jet to leave a NATO summit in Turkey, a move the newspaper attributed to Secret Service urging.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche defended the move during a Senate confirmation hearing on Wednesday, stating that reporters are “material witnesses” rather than targets. When questioned by Senator Peter Welch, Blanche clarified that the department wants to know “who provided them with classified national security information.”
Did you know? The new Air Force One was a gift from Qatar. The Trump administration spent approximately $400 million (roughly $561.6 million Cdn) to upgrade and retrofit the aircraft before it entered service.
Comparing DOJ Leak Policies Across Administrations
The current legal battle reflects a shift in how the federal government handles journalists’ records. While different administrations have seized phone records to find leakers, forcing a reporter to testify before a grand jury is described as extremely rare.
| Policy Action | Details |
|---|---|
| Biden Administration | Implemented protections against the secret seizure of journalists’ phone records. |
| Bondi Memo (April 2025) | Attorney General Pam Bondi rescinded Biden-era protections, re-authorizing subpoenas and warrants to hunt “unauthorized disclosures.” |
Attorney General Pam Bondi’s April 2025 memo stated that while press members are “presumptively entitled to advance notice,” prosecutors can now use more aggressive tools to identify leakers. The memo requires that warrants include protocols to limit intrusion into newsgathering activities.
Escalation of Press Intimidation Tactics
Press freedom advocates characterize these subpoenas as part of a broader pattern of intimidation. The New York Times described the subpoenas as being “brought in bad faith to punish The Times for its coverage,” according to a statement from David McCraw, the paper’s senior vice-president and deputy general counsel.
This legal pressure follows other direct actions against the media. In January, FBI agents searched the home of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson and seized her electronic devices. That investigation focused on a Pentagon contractor accused of taking home classified information.
Pro Tip: For journalists and whistleblowers, understanding the “shield laws” of specific jurisdictions is critical, though these often provide limited protection against federal grand jury subpoenas.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is the Justice Department subpoenaing journalists?
The DOJ claims it is not targeting reporters but is seeking to identify government officials who leaked classified national security information regarding Air Force One.
What was the specific security concern reported?
The New York Times reported that the new Qatari-donated aircraft lacked certain antimissile capabilities present in older versions, leading the Secret Service to suggest using an older jet for a NATO summit.
How does the current DOJ policy differ from previous ones?
Under Attorney General Pam Bondi, the department rescinded protections that prevented the secret seizure of journalists’ phone records, granting prosecutors broader authority to use warrants and subpoenas.
Want to stay updated on press freedom and national security law? Subscribe to our newsletter or share your thoughts on the balance between national security and the First Amendment in the comments below.
Related reading