Trump's DOJ Backs Down on Times Subpoenas Over Qatar Jet Story

Trump's DOJ Backs Down on Times Subpoenas Over Qatar Jet Story

The Trump administration's Justice Department will withdraw subpoenas it issued to New York Times journalists who reported on security flaws in a Qatari-donated aircraft used by the president, a prosecutor revealed at a federal court hearing Thursday.

Manhattan US attorney Jay Clayton had subpoenaed the reporters in July after the Times published accounts of Trump declining to fly on the new Air Force One over concerns it lacked adequate antimissile defenses and other protective systems. The plane had been a gift from Qatar.

The decision to retract the subpoenas came before US District Judge Arun Subramanian at a hearing scheduled for Thursday afternoon in Manhattan federal court. Prosecutors initially asked the judge to pause enforcement of the subpoenas for two weeks while the investigation proceeded, but ultimately backed away from pressing the demand.

The Times had urged the court to reject the subpoenas outright, arguing they amounted to harassment designed to intimidate journalists and violated First Amendment protections for a free press.

The subpoenas represent another chapter in what critics view as a broader Trump administration campaign to pressure news outlets and compel reporters to reveal their sources. The Times article relied on anonymous sources and was published as diplomatic tensions escalated following the collapse of a ceasefire agreement involving Israel and Iran.

Clayton, who was tapped by Trump to serve as the next director of national intelligence, had signed off on the subpoenas shortly after the Times reported the story. The decision to walk back the legal pressure on the newsroom marks a rare retreat in a pattern of confrontational moves toward major media organizations.

Author James Rodriguez: "This is exactly the kind of escalation that should alarm anyone who values press freedom, but the fact that the DOJ blinked suggests even Trump's own lawyers recognized how indefensible the move would look in court."

Comments