<>
The U.S. Justice Department dropped subpoenas demanding grand jury testimony and phone records from New York Times journalists on July 23, 2026, following sharp questioning from a federal judge in Manhattan. U.S. District Court Judge Arun Subramanian challenged the government’s national security justification and threatened federal attorneys with sanctions.
The subpoenas, filed on July 10, 2026, targeted New York Times journalists following two reports detailing security concerns that prompted the U.S. Secret Service to intervene and prevent then-President Trump from flying home from Turkey on a new Air Force One jet.
David McGraw, the lead newsroom lawyer for the New York Times, called the withdrawal a victory for constitutional protections. “It’s a great day for the First Amendment and a great day for the rule of law,” McGraw told NPR immediately after the hearing concluded in Manhattan federal court.
Judicial Scrutiny Over Journalistic Protections and Investigative Methods
During the hour-long hearing, Judge Subramanian questioned Sean Buckley, the deputy U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, regarding the timing and necessity of the subpoenas. The judge noted that seeking testimony and materials from reporters is designed to be a last resort rather than an initial investigative step, pointing out that the subpoenas were issued just two days after the initial New York Times article was published.
Buckley defended the actions by stating that the subpoenas were properly authorized by Acting U.S. When pressed by the court, Buckley asserted that authorization from the attorney general can supersede standard legal protections for journalists, though he declined to specify whether Blanche based the approval on national security grounds or a threat to human life.
Prosecutorial Errors and Unintended Phone Record Subpoenas
The hearing also addressed federal orders directed at mobile phone providers. Prosecutors had asked another federal judge to bar mobile providers from notifying journalists that their phone records had been subpoenaed, even though the Justice Department had already publicly confirmed the existence of the subpoenas.
Buckley apologized in court for mistakenly subpoenaing the mobile telephone records of the mother of one New York Times journalist and the spouses of two reporters. He attributed the action to an honest mistake involving publicly available databases that incorrectly associated those numbers with the journalists. “These inadvertent errors — in hindsight you should have done things differently,” Judge Subramanian said during the proceedings. “These things are beginning to pile up.”
Ongoing Leak Investigation and Defense Response
Despite withdrawing the subpoenas against the journalists, federal prosecutors maintained that the broader criminal investigation into the disclosure of classified information remains active. A Justice Department spokesperson criticized the judge’s handling of the case in a statement to NPR, asserting that the court’s conduct blocked the grand jury from reviewing core evidence in a national security matter and vowing to continue pursuing individuals responsible for leaking classified information.
Barnes, described to NPR the impact of the investigation when armed FBI agents visited her home on July 10, 2026. Marsh characterized the visit as un-American, adding in a post-hearing text message that federal authorities should never have issued the subpoenas against the journalists.
Keep reading