In a major legal development tied to press freedom and national security leak investigations, lawyers representing former President Donald Trump’s administration have formally withdrawn subpoenas that sought to force testimony from three New York Times reporters behind a bombshell report on security flaws in a Qatari-donated jet slated for the Air Force One fleet.
The pullback came during a Thursday court hearing where U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian openly questioned the legal foundation of the administration’s effort to obtain personal communication records from the journalists and even their immediate family members. The Department of Justice’s lead counsel for the Southern District of New York, Sean Buckley, acknowledged during the proceeding that the agency had committed procedural errors when issuing the legal summons.
The controversial legal action stemmed from a pair of New York Times reports published earlier this year, which cited unnamed intelligence and security sources to reveal that Secret Service officials had urged Trump to switch aircraft mid-trip during his 2026 NATO summit travel to Turkey. The reports detailed that the $400 million Boeing 747-8 jet, donated unconditionally to the U.S. by the Qatari government last year, lacked critical advanced security features including anti-missile defense capabilities, prompting the last-minute plane swap on the return flight from the summit. Trump has previously stated the jet will eventually be displayed at his future presidential library after it completes service as part of the Air Force One fleet.
Administration officials had defended the subpoenas, arguing they were an essential tool to root out unauthorized disclosures of classified government information that put national security at risk. The New York Times, however, decried the legal push as an overreach, calling the subpoenas “abusive and improper” in public statements. Court filings from the outlet revealed federal investigators had sought access to phone records belonging to one reporter’s mother and another reporter’s spouse, a detail that amplified outcry over the action.
While the subpoenas were withdrawn, a Department of Justice spokesperson made clear that the broader leak investigation remains active. “Make no mistake, this investigation remains ongoing, and we will pursue justice against those threatening national security by leaking classified information, a serious federal crime,” the spokesperson said in a post-hearing statement. Judge Subramanian also left the door open for the DOJ to renew its request, noting that the agency could refile revised subpoenas if it corrects the earlier procedural missteps.
For the New York Times, the withdrawal marks a significant win for press protections. David McCraw, the outlet’s chief newsroom legal counsel, framed the outcome as a key defense of First Amendment principles. “Today’s proceeding was an important affirmation of our country’s commitment to a free press,” McCraw said in a statement. “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 subpoenas would have required the three reporters to testify before a federal grand jury, the citizen convened body that decides whether criminal charges are warranted in federal cases. Press freedom advocates have applauded the development, framing it as a victory for all reporters who rely on confidential sources to deliver reporting that serves the public interest. “This outcome is a victory for The New York Times and for every journalist who relies on confidential sources to report in the public interest,” Reporters Without Borders said in a statement praising the court’s handling of the case.