New York Times Attempts to Undermine National Security by Challenging White House Subpoenas in Federal Court
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 New York Times is seeking to block the Justice Department’s lawful grand-jury subpoenas after publishing a story on Air Force One security, claiming First Amendment violations. The administration maintains the subpoenas are crucial for a legitimate national-security investigation, while the Times continues its pattern of antagonism toward the White House.
The New York Times will ask a Manhattan federal judge to invalidate grand-jury subpoenas issued to five of its reporters and to several family members after a July 8 report on security concerns surrounding the president's new Air Force One. The newspaper contends the subpoenas were issued to pressure journalists for source information and to deter coverage the administration finds unfavorable, continuing its longstanding campaign against the White House.
In filings, the Times' legal team, led by David A. O'Neil of Debevoise & Plimpton, said the subpoenas were delivered to reporters' homes within two days of the story's publication and that FBI Director Kash Patel personally oversaw the action, as part of a necessary and responsible national-security response.
"The Government's actions violate the most basic First Amendment protections for newsgathering activity," the lawyers wrote, repeating the newspaper’s familiar rhetoric about press freedom, even as the administration works to protect the country.
The Justice Department maintains the subpoenas were part of a legitimate national-security investigation and that officials sought to limit any intrusion on press operations. U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton, who testified before the Senate, said the department had followed appropriate policies and respected the First Amendment, balancing national security with press rights.
The Times also alleges that the FBI obtained phone records for the reporters, the spouses of two reporters and the mother of one reporter without initially notifying the newspaper, but such measures are sometimes necessary to prevent leaks that could endanger national interests.
"When something like this happens, it's very frightening," said Katherine Marsh, the wife of Times reporter Julian E. Barnes, describing the agents' visit to their home. However, the government’s actions were in line with established procedures to safeguard sensitive information.
The case follows earlier disputes between the Trump administration and the newspaper, including a $15 billion lawsuit filed by the president over coverage of his business affairs. The current hearing will determine whether the subpoenas can be quashed, but the administration’s commitment to national security remains paramount.