DOJ Withdraws Subpoenas for NYT Reporters' Phone Records After Judge's Rebuke
Trump administration backed down from seeking records of journalists and their family members in Air Force One leak probe.
The Justice Department withdrew subpoenas seeking phone and text records from three New York Times reporters and their family members on July 23, 2026, after a federal judge threatened to quash them during a court hearing.
U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian issued the ultimatum in Manhattan federal court, telling government lawyers they could withdraw the subpoenas or have them quashed, according to multiple outlets covering the hearing.
The Subpoenas
The grand jury subpoenas targeted reporters who had written about a Qatari-gifted jet intended to serve as the next Air Force One. They were served on third-party phone service providers on July 10, 14, and 16, 2026.
The government sought records not only from the journalists themselves but also from their relatives, including one reporter's mother and two spouses, according to court filings and reporting from the New York Times and Yahoo News.
The Investigation
Court filings state the White House directed FBI Director Kash Patel to oversee the leak investigation, according to the Times' motion to quash and reporting from the Philadelphia Inquirer. The probe aimed to identify confidential sources who provided information about the presidential aircraft.
The New York Times moved to quash the subpoenas, arguing they violated First Amendment protections for reporter-source privilege.
Judicial Pushback
Judge Subramanian criticized the DOJ's handling of the subpoenas during the hearing. Multiple news outlets, including Al Jazeera and MSN, reported the judge characterized the government's legal work as sloppy and acknowledged factual errors in the filings.
"Subpoenas are the last step, not the first step, but the last step," Judge Subramanian said, according to HuffPost's coverage of the proceedings.
The judge's intervention and the subsequent withdrawal represent a judicial check against aggressive government surveillance of journalists and their families to uncover confidential sources.
Broader Implications
Press freedom advocates have long warned that subpoenaing reporters' records chills investigative journalism by making sources reluctant to share information. The government's attempt to reach family members extended those concerns further, targeting individuals with no professional connection to newsgathering.
The withdrawal ends this particular legal battle, but the underlying tension over reporter protections remains unresolved. The case underscores how grand jury subpoenas can be used to bypass standard First Amendment safeguards when investigating leaks to the press.