The Air Force One Subpoenas Don’t Fly

Well, that didn’t take very long.

The Trump administration has withdrawn subpoenas demanding that three New York Times reporters reveal information about confidential sources for stories concerning the Qatari-donated presidential aircraft.

That retreat is welcome. But the underlying investigation continues, and prosecutors have left open the possibility of issuing new subpoenas. The episode demonstrates once again why Congress needs to pass the PRESS Act.

The dispute began after The Times reported that President Trump departed Turkey aboard the older Air Force One rather than the Qatari-donated Boeing 747 because the newer aircraft lacked antimissile and other defensive systems. The reporting relied on anonymous sources. But the underlying facts about the plane would have been visible to adversarial nations in photos of the new aircraft.

The government characterized the disclosures as a substantial national-security concern occurring amid hostilities with Iran. Protecting genuinely classified operational information is a legitimate and serious responsibility. Government employees are not free to disclose national-defense secrets merely because a journalist asks.

But the government’s response went far beyond investigating its own personnel. Prosecutors subpoenaed the journalists and sought telephone records belonging to the reporters and some of their relatives. According to NPR, the records sought included those of a reporter’s mother and the spouses of journalists.

At a hearing, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian sharply questioned the government’s handling of the matter. Prosecutors acknowledged that they had failed to notify the reporters about separate demands for their telephone records, as required by Justice Department rules. After roughly 90 minutes of questioning, the government agreed to withdraw the subpoenas, although it reserved the option to try again. Reuters reports that the leak investigation remains active.

Confidential sources are essential to journalism about national security, misconduct, corruption, and abuse of power. If officials can identify those sources by collecting reporters’ communications records – or those of their families – many potential whistleblowers will remain silent.

This episode shows that internal Justice Department policies are not enough. Such policies can be weakened, disregarded, or rewritten by any administration. The bipartisan PRESS Act would establish statutory protections against compelling journalists to disclose confidential sources or surrender sensitive newsgathering records, while retaining carefully drawn exceptions for genuine emergencies.

This legislation is not about favoring The New York Times or shielding unlawful leaks. It is about safeguarding the institutional independence of the American press with limited protections for journalists’ notes and sources.
​
The administration made the right call by withdrawing these subpoenas. Congress should now ensure that the next administration – of either party – cannot so easily turn reporters and their families into investigative targets.

DONATE & HELP US DEFEND YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS