The U.S. Department of Justice withdrew subpoenas issued to New York Times reporters investigating President Donald Trump’s new aircraft supplied by Qatar [1].

The move follows a judicial rebuke regarding the accuracy of the government's filings. This reversal highlights the tension between federal leak investigations and the legal protections afforded to journalists covering the executive branch.

The subpoenas targeted journalists who were reporting on the new Air Force One [2]. Specifically, the reporting involved the use of the Qatar-supplied jet [1], and allegations regarding missing security features on the aircraft [3]. The Department of Justice had sought information as part of a probe into the leak of this information.

According to court records, the withdrawal occurred on July 23, 2026 [3]. The Department of Justice said legal errors were the reason for the decision [3]. A judge had previously criticized the government for making inaccurate and incomplete statements to the court [3].

Reports indicate the subpoenas were issued through the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s Office [2]. Some sources said Manhattan U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton was the official who issued the requests [2], while others attribute the action to the broader Department of Justice [1].

The New York Times had resisted the subpoenas, arguing that the government's requests interfered with the press's ability to gather news. The DOJ's decision to drop the subpoenas prevents a protracted legal battle over reporter privileges in the Manhattan federal court [2].

“The Department of Justice withdrew subpoenas issued to New York Times reporters.”

This development underscores the legal risks the Department of Justice faces when using subpoenas to identify journalistic sources. By citing 'legal errors' and reacting to a judge's rebuke, the government avoided a potential court ruling that could have further restricted the state's ability to compel testimony from reporters. It also signals a precarious intersection of national security, presidential luxury assets, and press freedom.