MS NOW95%
Justice Department withdraws subpoenas for New York Times reporters 27%
By Lisa Rubin40%
7/23/2026, 8:57:56 PM
BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Fundamental Attribution Error, Unattributed Quote, and Appeal to Authority, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 13.7% saturation with 101 hits. Analysis detected 487 faulty-reasoning hits from 739 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 38.4% and a BS Rank of 27% (16,021 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 73.20% of the article peer group.
The Justice Department on Thursday withdrew the subpoenas it issued to three reporters for The New York Times who reported on security concerns about the new Air Force One gifted to President Donald Trump by the Qatari royal family.
The department also withdrew subpoenas to phone service providers for call records.
The withdrawal comes after the Times moved to quash the subpoenas last week, arguing that they “represent a brazen effort to intimidate the press” and “violate the most basic First Amendment protections for newsgathering activity.”
Press freedom groups, including the White House Correspondents’ Association, also condemned the issuing of the subpoenas, alleging that the government issued them due to officials’ embarrassment over the negative press rather than on any legitimate legal basis.
The DOJ argued that the journalists were not the targets of the subpoenas and that they were instead seeking to identify who the government said leaked what it described as national defense or classified information.
In court on Thursday, Judge Arun Subramanian started by asking the government if it would withdraw the subpoenas and, when the DOJ declined, invited their lawyer to argue otherwise.
In response, Sean Buckley, the former deputy U.S. attorney and current chief counsel to U.S.
Attorney Jay Clayton, argued for the better part of an hour that the subpoenas were lawfully issued and said they were authorized by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.
However, Buckley also admitted that the subpoenas erroneously sought information from a parent and spouses of the reporters as “a consequence of trying to move quickly.”
Later, after conferring with his co-counsel, Buckley said “the government is prepared unilaterally to withdraw these subpoenas at this time,” according to an official transcript of the proceedings obtained by MS NOW.
The DOJ issued the subpoenas, which sought the Times’ reporters phone records and grand jury testimonies, following the outlet’s coverage earlier this month that stated the new plane lacks the critical defensive countermeasures the previous plane had.
Following the Times’ reporting, Trump swapped out the new plane for the original Air Force One for his flight from the NATO summit to the United Kingdom, as MS NOW reported .
He also dispatched FBI Director Kash Patel to oversee a leak investigation into the source of the Times’ reporting.
Thursday’s news comes as a win for the newspaper — and for the First Amendment more broadly — at a time when the government has sought to curtail press freedoms through various legal actions and leak investigations .
In a statement provided to MS NOW, David McCraw, senior vice president and deputy general counsel for the Times, called the proceeding “an important affirmation of our country’s commitment to a free press.”
“We are pleased that the government finally conceded that the subpoenas violated the law, but they should never have been issued in the first place,” McGraw added.
“The Times and our journalists will continue to report and seek the truth without fear or favor.
We will not be deterred in the face of tactics like these.”
In a statement provided to CNBC, a spokesperson for the DOJ blasted Judge Subramanian, arguing his conduct “overrides clear longstanding principles and common sense — blocking the grand jury from receiving core evidence in a national security investigation.”
“Make no mistake, this investigation remains ongoing, and we will pursue justice against those threatening national security by leaking classified information, a serious federal crime,” the spokesperson added.
After the hearing’s conclusion, Subramanian issued an order cementing the withdrawal of the subpoenas and obligating the DOJ to notify him, per its own offer at the hearing, before issuing new subpoenas to or about the reporters who brought Thursday’s challenge.
He also demanded the U.S.
Attorney’s Office provide the court with internal communications relating to its effort to keep the phone service provider subpoenas secret.
Subramanian maintained that the DOJ’s application for a nondisclosure order was not warranted under the circumstances and reflected such a deviation from court rulings and regulations as to potentially warrant sanctions.
After the government withdrew the subpoenas, David O’Neill, the lead lawyer for the Times, told Subramanian that the DOJ’s conduct in the case has been “replete with bad faith and that’s even clearer now.”
Subramanian said he would “consider all the points raised” by the Times “in any future efforts” by DOJ to subpoena these reporters, adding, “subpoenas are a tool of last resort.”
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.