President Donald Trump on Friday expressed support for aggressive Justice Department investigations targeting journalists in connection with leaked government information, emphasizing that identifying leakers often requires questioning reporters who receive sensitive material. His remarks came amid ongoing legal disputes involving subpoenas and searches of journalists’ records, underscoring heightened tensions between the administration and the press.

Speaking in the Oval Office, Trump reiterated that the government is focused on “leakers” rather than journalists themselves but asserted that inquiries often necessitate engaging with reporters. He described those who disclose classified or sensitive information as “cowards” and “unpatriotic,” and called the leaks “treasonous in many cases.” Citing the 2022 Politico publication of a leaked draft Supreme Court opinion that overturned Roe v. Wade, Trump urged authorities to identify leakers by compelling journalists to reveal their sources, particularly in cases involving national security.

The president’s comments followed a rigorous court hearing involving subpoenas issued to New York Times reporters earlier this month. The subpoenas demanded testimony and phone records related to the reporters’ coverage of security concerns surrounding Trump’s use of a repurposed Boeing 747—provided to him by Qatar—during a NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey. After concerns about potential threats, including from Iran, Trump abandoned plans to fly the plane on the return trip. The Justice Department subpoenaed the journalists amid an investigation coordinated by FBI Director Kash Patel, reportedly in response to the coverage.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian sharply questioned federal prosecutors’ approach to the subpoenas, highlighting legal precedents that require extensive efforts to protect reporters before compelling testimony or records. The judge gave prosecutors the option to withdraw the subpoenas, which they eventually did, but noted that subpoenas remain possible if proper procedures are followed.

Trump defended the administration’s pursuit of journalists when related to national security leaks, asserting that such leaks constitute serious threats. He also claimed that prior administrations, including Barack Obama’s, pursued journalists in leak investigations without complaints, a claim that experts say overlooks significant criticism faced by the Obama administration for similar tactics. During Obama’s tenure, leak investigations led to secret subpoenas and phone record seizures of reporters, drawing condemnation from press freedom groups and lawmakers, prompting then-Attorney General Eric Holder to implement stricter policies limiting subpoenas of journalists.

Press freedom advocates, while acknowledging leak investigations by previous administrations, argue that Trump’s Justice Department has employed “the full weight” of regulatory, legal, and rhetorical power against reporters in an unprecedented manner. Bruce D. Brown, president of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, stated that no prior administration has matched the current one’s level of pressure on the media.

Legal experts note that long-standing First Amendment protections generally safeguard reporters from being compelled to disclose sources or provide unpublished materials, reinforced by policies established under the Obama and Biden administrations. However, the Biden Justice Department rescinded a policy protecting journalists from subpoenas during leak probes last year, intensifying concerns among journalists.

The Justice Department’s approach has drawn judicial criticism in other high-profile cases as well, including January’s FBI raid on Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson’s home and devices. This raid was linked to an investigation of a federal contractor accused of illegally retaining classified documents. Subsequent court rulings have largely restricted the government’s access to Natanson’s materials.

Press freedom advocates warn that these aggressive investigatory tactics may have a chilling effect on journalistic work, discouraging sources from speaking to reporters and creating legal risks for journalists covering sensitive topics. The increasing willingness of the government to seek journalists’ records and testimony represents a significant challenge to traditional protections for the press.