The Justice Department has officially dropped its subpoenas targeting New York Times journalists after a federal judge issued a stern rebuke regarding the government’s aggressive tactics. The move follows a high-stakes hearing on Thursday, July 23, 2026, where the presiding judge dismantled the government’s justification for seeking grand jury testimony and private phone records from reporters.
Per NPR, the DOJ filed the subpoenas on July 10, two days after the Times published the first of two reports detailing security concerns involving the new Air Force One jet, gifted by Qatar. They had reported that the Secret Service urged President Trump to avoid flying home from Turkey on the aircraft. It raised questions about whether the plane was properly retrofitted with essential security features like advanced missile defense systems before being put into service.
The Washington Post reported that the government’s attempt to compel testimony was met with sharp resistance in court. U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian made it clear that he was not impressed with the Justice Department’s legal strategy. During the hearing, he presented prosecutors with a very narrow choice: “Seems like you’ve got two options — either we can quash the subpoenas or you can withdraw the subpoenas.”
The Department of Justice ultimately chose to withdraw the demands.
The hearing reportedly lasted well over an hour and saw the judge repeatedly challenge the logic behind the government’s actions. Subramanian noted that seeking testimony and materials from journalists is meant to be an absolute last resort in any investigation, not a starting point.
Per NPR, Subramanian pointed to binding legal precedent and the Justice Department’s own internal policies, questioning how the agency could justify such a move just two days after the initial publication of the articles. When pressed on why the government failed to follow established legal standards, deputy U.S. attorney Sean Buckley responded, “I don’t review every piece of paper.”
Per the outlet, the judge’s frustration was also directed at the government’s handling of privacy for those connected to the journalists. Prosecutors had subpoenaed the mobile phone records of the spouses of two reporters and the mother of another, claiming it was an honest mistake based on public databases. “These inadvertent errors — in hindsight you should have done things differently,” Subramanian said tersely. “These things are beginning to pile up.”
Katherine Marsh, the wife of reporter Julian E. Barnes, is reported to have described a jarring experience where armed FBI officials arrived at their home while the family was watching a movie. “To me this felt really un-American,” Marsh stated.
According to NPR, the judge later highlighted the irony of this, noting that the movie the family was watching, The Sheep Detectives, focused on a rural policeman solving a crime. “I can’t think of anything more inconsistent with The Sheep Detectives than having FBI agents show up at their doors,” the judge remarked.
Per the Post, prosecutors did concede that the Justice Department did not take all available avenues needed for the information they were seeking before they issued the subpoenas. Subramanian chided them, stating, “Subpoenas are the last step — not the first step, but the last step.” This isn’t the first time a federal judge ruled against the government in support of NYT when the Pentagon’s press policy was ruled unconstitutional.
Legal counsel for the Times celebrated the outcome as a win for the press. “It’s a great day for the First Amendment and a great day for the rule of law,” David McGraw, the lead newsroom lawyer for the New York Times, told NPR. “Once again, the federal courts have stood up for what’s right in this country. We hope that’s the end of it.”
According to The Washington Post, McCraw added, “We are pleased that the government finally conceded that the subpoenas violated the law, but they should never have been issued in the first place. The Times and our journalists will continue to report and seek the truth without fear or favor. We will not be deterred in the face of tactics like these.”
Despite the withdrawal, the Justice Department stated that its investigation into the leak of classified information remains active. A spokesperson for the department criticized the judge’s ruling, stating that the court’s conduct blocks the grand jury from receiving core evidence. The government had argued that the subpoenas were properly authorized by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.
However, the judge’s insistence that the subpoenas be withdrawn effectively halted that specific avenue of inquiry for the time being. As the legal battle concludes for now, the incident serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing tension between federal investigative powers and the protected role of the press in reporting on national security issues.
Published: Jul 24, 2026 01:51 pm