The Justice Department has withdrawn subpoenas issued to three New York Times reporters who were ordered to testify before a Manhattan federal grand jury about their coverage of security concerns related to President Donald Trump’s Air Force One jet, which was gifted by Qatar. The move came after U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian sharply criticized the government’s handling of the subpoenas during a public hearing on Thursday.

The subpoenas, served on reporters Julian E. Barnes, Eric Lipton, Tyler Pager, and Eric Schmitt, compelled them to reveal confidential sources connected to articles reporting that the Qatari Boeing 747-8 aircraft, retrofitted at a cost of around $400 million, lacked certain advanced security features such as antimissile defenses. The Times cited anonymous officials who said the Secret Service recommended Trump use an older Air Force One jet during a recent trip, due to concerns about the newer jet’s security capabilities. Trump publicly disputed these reports, stating he chose the older plane in order to display the Qatari jet to military personnel.

At the hearing, Judge Subramanian expressed strong skepticism about the Justice Department’s approach, emphasizing that subpoenas to journalists should be a “last step” in investigations and not used lightly. He questioned why the government had not exhausted other investigative avenues before seeking the journalists’ testimony, a key requirement under federal regulations designed to protect the press. The judge also noted the potential First Amendment implications and the risk of chilling newsgathering and free expression.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Sean Buckley acknowledged errors in the department’s process, including mistakenly subpoenaing phone records of some journalists’ family members. Buckley described these missteps as unintentional consequences of the government’s expedited efforts and apologized for these oversights. Despite the judge’s suggestion that sanctions might be warranted, he stopped short of imposing penalties, but underscored the seriousness of the government’s procedural failings.

The Times’ legal team characterized the subpoenas as retaliatory and an unprecedented escalation by the Trump administration to intimidate the press, pointing to the president’s well-documented antagonism toward media organizations. Their court filings argued that the subpoenas violated legal precedent by not meeting the strict criteria that protect journalists from forced disclosure of confidential sources.

The investigation into the leaks was reportedly led at the highest levels, including by FBI Director Kash Patel, who was involved from the White House and personally oversaw the efforts on the day the subpoenas were issued. Patel responded on social media that his presence at the White House was related to the inquiry, signaling ongoing government interest in pursuing the matter.

The Justice Department defended its actions, asserting that the grand jury has the right to hear testimony from all material witnesses in a federal criminal investigation and insisted the inquiry into classified information leaks remains active. Officials stressed that the subpoenas were part of a national security investigation and maintained that the government followed proper legal procedures.

This episode follows similar recent developments in which the Justice Department withdrew subpoenas seeking testimony from journalists at The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal in unrelated leak investigations. The aggressive approach toward journalists and media organizations has sparked debate among legal experts and free press advocates, who warn such tactics could undermine press freedom and deter reporting on matters of significant public interest.