Earlier this week, in a Manhattan courtroom, The New York Times asked a federal judge to block an extraordinary attempt by the Trump administration to force three of its reporters to testify before a grand jury about their confidential sources.
The subpoenas, which were delivered directly to the homes of reporters Julian Barnes, Eric Lipton, and Eric Schmitt, stem from The Times’ reporting on security concerns surrounding Donald Trump’s Qatari-donated jet, which he has sought to use as the next Air Force One. The legal action has thrust the paper into a high-stakes legal battle over confidential sources, drawing executive editor Joe Kahn into the fight as the newsroom braces for a potentially precedent-setting clash with the Justice Department.
For now, however, The Times has secured a temporary reprieve.
Status has learned that U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian on Thursday granted the newspaper’s request to postpone the reporters’ scheduled grand jury appearances pending a hearing next week on its motion to quash the subpoenas. The ruling means Barnes, Lipton, and Schmitt will not be forced—for now—to testify about their reporting or confidential sources while the court considers whether the subpoenas should survive at all.
The judge also gave the Justice Department until July 20 to respond to The Times' motion to quash the subpoenas, and, notably, to say whether it believes any of The Times' own court filings should remain sealed from public view. A hearing over the subpoenas is now scheduled for July 23.
A spokesperson for The Times declined to comment on Thursday’s court ruling. Earlier this week, however, the paper’s deputy general counsel David McCraw said: “We are going to court to defend our journalists’ rights to report freely on the administration and to provide the public with stories that matter.”
But the ruling is only an interim victory. If Trump’s Justice Department ultimately succeeds in compelling reporters to testify before a grand jury, it would send a chilling message not only to journalists but also to the government officials who routinely provide information in the public interest. Confidential sources are often the only way the public learns about failures, misconduct, or national security concerns inside the government. Trump's attempt to root out that pipeline risks muzzling crucial information that would otherwise never reach the public.
Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche defended authorizing the subpoenas, insisting that “we’re not targeting reporters—they’re material witnesses” and comparing the reporters' to a “a material witness to a car crash.” According to a person familiar with the matter, only Barnes, Lipton, and Schmitt were successfully served subpoenas. The administration also attempted to subpoena reporters Adam Goldman and Tyler Pager, but failed to do so. Pager said on “The Daily” this week that he was attending his mother’s birthday party in New York and “wasn’t at my home in D.C.” when the subpoenas were served. Goldman, meanwhile, is a London-based reporter for The Times.
As renowned First Amendment attorney Ted Boutrous told Status earlier this week, Justice Department officials knew exactly how to contact The Times’ lawyers but instead showed up at journalists’ homes.
“To go to their houses and serve the subpoenas when they know where David McCraw is, they know where The Times is, they know the drill on this,” Boutrous said. “Instead, it’s really a bush league maneuver in so many ways. So unprofessional to serve these grand jury subpoenas without notice to anybody.”
Kahn underscored the point in a video published Wednesday by The Times, describing the subpoenas as “a naked attempt to intimidate The New York Times and to keep us from reporting on matters that we think are essential to national security.”
Having previously served as a correspondent in China, Kahn warned of governments using pressure campaigns to suppress independent journalism.
“I’ve seen the way an authoritarian government can keep journalists from reporting on a huge amount of news and information that’s very clearly in the public interest,” he said. “Press freedoms must be protected. We will keep reporting.”
Whether the courts ultimately agree may determine far more than the fate of these five reporters. The outcome could define just how aggressively the Trump administration is allowed to use the levers of the Justice Department to pry into newsrooms—and whether confidential sources can continue to trust that speaking to journalists won’t ultimately lead investigators to their doorstep.
