Padilla, Schiff, Senate Judiciary Democrats Probe DOJ Subpoenas of New York Times Journalists Over Air Force One Security Scandal

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff (both D-Calif.) joined all Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats in demanding the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) provide information related to the issuance of subpoenas to journalists at the New York Times, their family members, and third-party record providers in the aftermath of reporting by the newspaper on President Trump's new Air Force One gifted from Qatar and retrofitted at American taxpayer expense to the tune of nearly $1 billion.

DOJ withdrew the subpoenas last week after intense scrutiny from a federal judge. But DOJ's conduct raises serious questions to which the American public deserves answers.

"The Department's lack of transparency and aggressive action toward journalists - in this circumstance, seemingly directed by President Trump after he was upset by negative reporting - both follow this administration's clear pattern of pressuring news organizations, including several attempts by DOJ to subpoena or intimidate journalists," wrote the Senators.

The Judiciary Committee Democrats also noted that DOJ's conduct appeared to violate both First Amendment freedoms and Department policy.

"Section 9-13.400 [of the Justice Manual] explicitly dictates that requested information must be 'essential' to an investigation or prosecution, and that subpoenas 'should not be used to obtain peripheral, nonessential, or speculative information.' Yet DOJ demanded records dating back to January 1, 2026," wrote the Senators.

The inquiry also demands details on the investigative steps taken prior to the subpoenas, the President's involvement in the decision to issue the subpoenas, and DOJ's justification for the subpoenas' overbroad scope and reach.

In addition to Padilla and Schiff, the letter was signed by Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

Full text of the letter is available here and below:

Dear Acting Attorney General Blanche,

We write to express serious concern regarding the Department of Justice's (DOJ) recent subpoenas seeking grand jury testimony from and targeting the phone records of several New York Times (NYT) journalists and their relatives. The administration's attempt to identify confidential press sources in connection with embarrassing public reports regarding the lack of security capabilities of Trump's new Air Force One aircraft gifted from the country of Qatar appears to be retaliation ordered by President Trump himself.

While DOJ has since withdrawn these requests - including those delivered to reporters' homes by armed agents - the government's conduct involved a series of apparent bad-faith efforts to conceal notice of these subpoenas and intimidate journalists and their families following the publication of a story that allegedly enraged President Trump. This conduct appears to have violated the Department's own policy set forth in the Justice Manual, including provisions governing the acquisition of records from, or pertaining to, members of the news media.

On April 25, 2025, then-Attorney General Pam Bondi sent all DOJ employees a memorandum announcing several updates to Justice Manual Section 9-13.400 (Obtaining Information From, or Records of, Members of the News Media; and Questioning, Arresting, or Charging Members, of the News Media). While this memo recognized that a free and independent press is "a bedrock principle… vital to the functioning of our democracy," it also rescinded protections implemented under former Attorney General Merrick Garland that prohibited federal prosecutors from using compulsory process, including subpoenas, against journalists acting in their news- gathering role to uncover confidential sources or unpublished work. Despite rolling back this protection, Attorney General Bondi's memo clearly asserted that procedural protections, designed to "limit the use of compulsory legal process to obtain information from or records of members of the news media," recognize that subpoenas of, or pertaining to members of the press, "are an extraordinary measure to be deployed as a last resort."

During your confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 15, 2026, you were asked directly about the government's apparent attempts to intimidate journalists, particularly the subpoenas of NYT reporters. In response, you minimized the importance of the press's ability to maintain the confidentiality of their sources, asserting, "We're not targeting reporters - they're material witnesses," and comparing a journalist in a leak investigation to a "material witness to a car crash." This alarming characterization crudely conflates constitutionally protected newsgathering and source protection - both foundational to First Amendment freedoms - with basic eyewitness observation.

Senators on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee also sought information on the subject - including whether reasonable attempts to obtain information were made before subpoenaing journalists - from Jay Clayton, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, at his confirmation hearing to be Director of National Intelligence on July 15, 2026. Mr. Clayton, who authorized the subpoenas of NYT reporters, declined to provide details beyond characterizing the decision as "a consultative exercise with career prosecutors." In response to observations that the subpoenas were issued shortly after a White House meeting on the NYT's published report covering the President's new aircraft, an unusually short period of time, Mr. Clayton again refused to provide more information, stating only that DOJ's procedures "depend on those facts and circumstances."

The Department's lack of transparency and aggressive action toward journalists - in this circumstance, seemingly directed by President Trump after he was upset by negative reporting - both follow this administration's clear pattern of pressuring news organizations, including several attempts by DOJ to subpoena or intimidate journalists. In January 2026, federal agents searched the home of a Washington Post journalist as part of an investigation into a government contractor's handling of classified legal records. In June 2026, reporters at The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post were compelled to appear before a federal grand jury, prompting legal challenges from both news organizations that ultimately led DOJ to retract the subpoenas.

Court filings indicate that the Department's actions in this matter appear to conflict directly with key rules outlined in the Justice Manual:

1. Failure to Provide Timely Notice: Section 9-13.400 and the Attorney General's April 25, 2025, memorandum presumptively entitle members of the news media to advance notice of investigative activities, including subpoenas. However, in this case, DOJ prosecutors waited more than a week after demanding records from third-party record providers before notifying the NYT journalists that they had been subpoenaed. These actions appear to directly violate DOJ policy, which requires that "the affected media member shall be given reasonable and timely notice before the use of the subpoena, order, or warrant, unless the Attorney General determines such notice would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation, risk grave harm to national security, or present an imminent risk of death or serious bodily harm." Court filings also reveal that DOJ requested a nondisclosure order from a federal judge to legally block telecommunication companies from informing the NYT of these subpoenas.
2. Overbroad Scope: Section 9-13.400 explicitly dictates that requested information must be "essential" to an investigation or prosecution, and that subpoenas "should not be used to obtain peripheral, nonessential, or speculative information." Yet DOJ demanded records dating back to January 1, 2026, well before the NYT began reporting on Air Force One security capabilities.
3. Improper Targeting of Relatives: DOJ subpoenas targeted the personal phone records of journalists' close relatives, including one reporter's mother and two reporters' spouses. However, Section 9-13.400 of the Justice Manual strictly limits the policy to "news media entities and individuals engaged in lawful newsgathering activities." Targeting family members goes far beyond standard newsgathering inquiries and represents an unwarranted expansion of DOJ authority into the private lives of journalists.

Furthermore, in court proceedings on July 23, 2026, a federal judge criticized the administration's aggressive efforts to compel journalists to reveal their sources, stating that DOJ's actions had turned the law and the regulations "on its head." The judge further acknowledged, as the Justice Manual states, that, "Subpoenas are the last step, not the first step, but the last step." Under the judge's questioning, the government acknowledged factual errors and the omission of significant information in its filings and ultimately withdrew its subpoenas.

To fulfill the Senate's legislative and oversight responsibilities, and to ensure full transparency regarding Department operations, we request a briefing from senior Department officials on DOJ's compliance with Section 9-13.400 of the Justice Manual and the Attorney General's April 25, 2025, memorandum by August 7, 2026. We also request written responses to the following questions by August 7, 2026:

1. Did you, Mr. Clayton, or any DOJ employee communicate with or receive direction from President Trump, White House staff, or executive branch personnel regarding the NYT report or the decision to issue subpoenas prior to their issuance?
   1. If so, please provide all such records and communications.
2. What specific investigative steps were taken to obtain requested information from media sources before targeting journalists and their family members?
3. What specific factual basis justified delaying notice to affected parties regarding records requests to third-party record providers?
4. What specific factual basis justified seeking a judicial nondisclosure order to block telecommunications providers from notifying affected parties of record requests?
5. What was the investigative justification for requesting records dating back to January 1, 2026, several months before the NYT initiated reporting on the presidential aircraft's security capabilities?
6. Under what statutory or regulatory authority did DOJ justify seeking the personal phone records of reporters' spouses and parents who are not engaged in newsgathering?
7. Please provide a complete accounting of every instance since April 25, 2025, in which DOJ requested or issued compulsory legal process (including grand jury subpoenas, search warrants, or third-party record requests) targeting journalists, news organizations, their family members, or their close associates, including the circumstances surrounding the January 2026 search of a Washington Post reporter's home and the June 2026 grand jury subpoenas issued to The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post.

We appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to your response. Please contact my office should you have any questions regarding the scope of this request.

###