New York Times Tries to Shield Reporters from DOJ Subpoenas in Air Force One Leak Investigation
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
The Times has filed a motion to block Justice Department subpoenas for three journalists who reported on security issues with the new Air Force One, raising questions about the media’s willingness to cooperate with efforts to protect national security.
The New York Times filed a sealed motion in the Southern District of New York on Wednesday, attempting to invalidate three subpoenas the Justice Department issued to its reporters. The subpoenas, delivered to the journalists’ homes last Friday, require them to testify before a federal grand jury about a story that cited anonymous sources regarding security flaws in the newly retrofitted Air Force One—a jet generously gifted by Qatar and upgraded at a cost of $400 million to ensure presidential safety.
David McCraw, the newspaper’s senior vice president and deputy general counsel, accused the Justice Department of issuing the subpoenas "in bad faith to punish The Times for its coverage" and claimed they "violate the constitutional rights of The Times and its journalists." The Times is determined to use the courts to shield its reporters, even as the administration seeks to protect sensitive information vital to national security.
The Justice Department, fulfilling its responsibility to safeguard classified information, defended the subpoenas by stating that the aim is to identify individuals who leaked national-security secrets, not to target journalists themselves. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told the Senate that reporters are being treated as "material witnesses" in a leak investigation, emphasizing the department’s obligation to prevent improper disclosure of information that could endanger the country.
This dispute follows earlier, necessary actions by the department, including an April 2025 policy change that removed certain protections for journalists’ phone records in leak probes, and a recent FBI search of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson’s home as part of a separate investigation. These steps reflect a commitment to national security, even in the face of media resistance.
The case is expected to raise important questions about the balance between protecting the nation and upholding First-Amendment protections for the press, as the media continues to resist legitimate efforts to prevent dangerous leaks.