The Justice Department withdrew its demand for New York Times journalists' testimony and phone records on July 23, 2026, after a federal judge in Manhattan said he would throw out the demands himself and raised the possibility of punishing government lawyers for misleading the court.

The demands, called subpoenas, were filed July 10, 2026. They came two days after the Times published its first story on security concerns about the new Air Force One jet, a $400 million plane gifted by Qatar (The Guardian). The Times reported that the U.S. Secret Service stepped in to stop President Trump from flying home from the NATO summit in Turkey on the jet (NPR) (Axios).

U.S. District Court Judge Arun Subramanian oversaw the hearing in the Southern District of New York. According to NPR, Subramanian told federal prosecutors that if the subpoenas were not withdrawn, he would quash them — meaning he would cancel them himself.

The government tried to avoid that by offering to put the subpoenas on hold for 14 days. Subramanian rejected the idea. He asked why the Justice Department had not tried other ways to get the information before going after journalists. NBC News reported that the judge questioned why prosecutors had not pursued other steps first (NBC News).

Subramanian went further, threatening to impose sanctions — formal penalties — against federal attorneys for failing to follow the law and for misleading the court in signed filings (NPR).

Sean Buckley, the deputy U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, presented the government's case and is leading the broader investigation into who leaked the information. Federal prosecutors argued that the U.S. attorney general has the authority to set aside legal protections for journalists when the government decides it is necessary (NPR).

New York Times attorney David McGraw called the outcome "a great day for the First Amendment and a great day for the rule of law" (NPR).

A Justice Department spokesperson said the investigation remains ongoing and that the department will pursue justice against those leaking classified information (NPR).

The withdrawal does not rule out future action. Courthouse News reported that the Justice Department could reissue the subpoenas if it cannot get the information it wants through other means (Courthouse News).

The broader context matters for anyone following how the government investigates leaks and how much protection journalists have. The Justice Department's argument, as Buckley presented it, is that the attorney general can override protections that normally keep reporters from having to reveal their sources. Think of it like a doctor-patient privilege: the law shields certain conversations, but the government says it can set that shield aside when it decides the need is great enough.

Judge Subramanian pushed back on two fronts. He questioned whether prosecutors had first tried all other ways to get the information, which is a required step before targeting journalists. He also signaled that the court would not simply trust the government's word that the subpoenas were necessary, because the government's own court filings contained misrepresentations.

The sanctions threat is the more unusual part. Judges cancel subpoenas fairly often. They rarely threaten to penalize federal attorneys for misleading the court. That step suggests the judge found the government's filings not just legally weak, but deliberately misleading.

By withdrawing the subpoenas instead of letting the judge issue a formal ruling, the Justice Department kept its options open. If Subramanian had formally quashed the subpoenas, that written decision could have set a legal precedent limiting future leak investigations that target the press. The withdrawal leaves those legal questions unanswered, which may be exactly what the Justice Department wanted.

Whether the department reissues the subpoenas will likely depend on what its investigation turns up through other channels. For now, the subpoenas are gone, the investigation continues, and the question of how much authority the attorney general has over journalist protections remains unanswered by any written court decision.