Trump targets leaks with subpoenas

Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth announced in a July 13 X video that the Department of War, formally known as the Department of Defense, and the Justice Department established a joint task force to “identify and prosecute leakers.”

“The security of our nation cannot be a bargaining chip for those who seek momentary headlines,” he said.

But part of those efforts to combat leaks have included issuing subpoenas to journalists, a move that is raising First Amendment concerns among press freedom advocates.

Most recently, the administration’s efforts to crack down on leaks included subpoenas issued to several New York Times journalists on July 10, the newspaper reported. Before that, the DOJ issued, but later withdrew, subpoenas to reporters from the Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post reported in June.

U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Jay Clayton issued the most recent subpoenas that sought to have the journalists testify before a federal grand jury on July 15. They had “few specifics” but compelled testimony “in regard to an alleged violation of federal criminal law,” The New York Times reported.

The newspaper said the subpoenas followed its reporting on security concerns related to Trump’s new Qatar-gifted Air Force One. It reported that the Federal Bureau of Investigation asked The New York Times prior to the story’s publication to hold the article because of national security concerns.

Trump nominated Clayton to be the next director of national intelligence in June. Clayton’s confirmation hearing was held July 15.

Past presidential administrations also issued subpoenas to journalists, but experts and press advocates have described the Trump administration’s approach to curbing leaks as an escalation that could run afoul of the First Amendment.

“They’re using these types of tools as a first resort, not a last resort,” Gabe Rottman, vice president of policy at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said.

Neither the Department of Justice nor the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York returned USA TODAY’s requests for comment.

Here’s what to know about the subpoenas and how the First Amendment applies.

What's been the response to the new subpoenas?

Clay Calvert, a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, called the subpoenas “par for the course” in what he described as the Trump administration’s “war on a free press in the United States” in an interview with USA TODAY.

Press freedom advocates, including groups like the National Press Club, the International Press Institute and the Committee to Protect Journalists, as well as The New York Times itself, echoed those sentiments in their respective statements on the matter.

“This brazen act should be seen as nothing more than an attempt to prevent the public from knowing what is happening in their country by intimidating journalists from doing their jobs,” David McCraw, an attorney for The New York Times, said.

What is the administration saying?

Justice Department spokeswoman Emily Covington told The New York Times that “reporters are not the targets, those leaking classified information are.”

“We value and appreciate the important role that the press plays in this country, but D.O.J. also plays an important role to make sure that the people entrusted with our nation’s secrets do what they’re supposed to do with that information,” she said, according to the news outlet.

Trump’s administration has increasingly sought to investigate and penalize leaks.

In April 2025, then-Attorney General Pam Bondi revoked a policy established under former President Joe Biden's administration that offered greater protection to journalists against government searches.

The FBI searched a Washington Post reporter’s home in January as part of an investigation into a government contractor accused of illegally retaining classified documents.

Then in May, the administration proposed implementing a governmentwide nondisclosure agreement that could lead to civil and criminal penalties for violators. The proposal referenced several leak incidents, including those related to the U.S. raid in Venezuela in January and the Department of Homeland Security’s immigration enforcement operations.

Did The New York Times respond in court?

Yes. The newspaper filed a motion to quash what McCraw called the "abusive and improper subpoenas" on July 15. He called the subpoenas unconstitutional and said they were "brought in bad faith to punish The Times for its coverage."

"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," McCraw said in the statement provided to USA TODAY.

He added that the filing was sealed per court order but said the newspaper "believes that the public has a right to information about this case and is also seeking to have the papers unsealed."

On the same day, Democratic lawmakers questioned acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche about authorizing the subpoenas during his Senate confirmation hearing to permanently lead the Department of Justice.

Echoing Covington's remarks, Blanche said the department was "not targeting reporters − they're material witnesses."

"The question we want to ask them is who provided them with classified national security information which everybody in this body should want to protect, I would hope," he said.

Clayton was also pressed on the matter during his own confirmation hearing. He declined to offer specifics but said he was "confident that the ... procedures that we have in place to protect the First Amendment and protect the freedom of the press and not result in intimidation of journalists or the like were followed."

"It is vitally important that if national security interests are at stake that there's not what I would say is a huge blind spot where someone can ... use the ability to provide information to journalists to get it out there, including our adversaries, without any potential for discovering how that happened," he said.

How are the Trump administration's subpoenas different from past administrations?

First Amendment experts and press freedom advocates distinguished between subpoenas under former administrations and those under Trump. They said subpoenas targeting journalists should be a rare means of obtaining vital or potentially life-saving information when other options do not exist.

Though she acknowledged the sparse publicly available details on The New York Times subpoenas, Amanda Martin, a law professor and supervising attorney at Duke University School of Law's First Amendment Clinic, said they “certainly seem to be politically motivated” and that that should “never” be the case.

“I would say they should be quite few and far between, if ever,” she said.

How does this affect the general public?

Experts said the Trump administration's subpoenas and other actions against journalists could indirectly impact the general public by making sources more hesitant to disclose information to the news media.

“If the press isn’t able to gather information about the government, then the public loses access to the information it needs to hold the government accountable at the ballot box,” Rottman said.

Are there efforts to limit government interference?

Aside from attempts to thwart the Trump administration’s efforts through the legal system, press advocates have supported legislation designed to protect journalists from government interference.

Various organizations and media companies have called for Congress to pass the Protect Reporters from Exploitative State Spying (PRESS) Act. The legislation, which was passed in the House in 2024 but stalled in the Senate, sought to protect journalists and their sources from government probes.

U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, and U.S. Rep. Becca Balint, D-Vermont, introduced the “Privacy Protection Updates Act” in their respective chambers in March. Wyden’s office said the bill would close "loopholes" in the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 that he said have “been abused by multiple presidential administrations,” including in the January FBI raid.