New York Times reporter Julian E. Barnes was watching "The Sheep Detectives" with his family one recent Friday night when two federal agents rang his doorbell.
Days before, he had helped to write articles about security concerns involving a jet gifted to the U.S. by the Qatari government that was being used as Air Force One. Now, standing on the landing outside his door, the agents served him a subpoena demanding he testify before a federal grand jury.
As Barnes accepted the papers, his wife, novelist Katherine Marsh, rushed to her laptop in the living room. Concerned the government agents would confiscate the family's electronic devices in its hunt for sensitive information, she wanted to check that she had backups of her manuscripts. The devices weren't taken.
Marsh had written of Soviet officers knocking on citizens' doors in pursuit of information for her young-adult novel about authoritarianism in Stalinist Ukraine, a finalist for the National Book Award. Now, she told The Wall Street Journal, she felt like her family was living a version of that story.
Marsh said she later learned that the government had also requested her phone records. Her number had come up as being connected to Barnes.
Barnes, four other Times reporters and their families -- along with the New York Times itself -- were swept up in a legal brawl over the Trump administration's efforts to identify leakers.
The Justice Department agreed at a court hearing on Thursday to withdraw the subpoenas related to several New York Times reporters, including Barnes. It said its national security investigation is continuing.
The president and the Justice Department have subpoenaed journalists at various news outlets on at least three occasions in recent months, turning to an approach that was generally considered a last resort used only after federal officials exhausted other avenues to investigate unauthorized national security disclosures. Senior government officials have also sued for defamation, while the Trump administration has limited certain reporters' access to the Oval Office, Air Force One and the Pentagon, and called some coverage about the war in Iran treasonous.
First Amendment lawyers and newsrooms say the actions amount to an attempt to chill journalists and their sources. While previous administrations have sought to subpoena reporters for their sources, no other sitting president has sued a news organization for defamation.
A White House spokeswoman said President Trump takes questions from the media daily and has "harnessed the power of new media and social media to get his message out directly to the American public and will continue cutting through the Fake News to do so." The Justice Department had said it wasn't targeting the journalists with its recent subpoenas, but rather was investigating national security leaks. It also said it values "the important role that the press plays in this country."
The Times's lawyers said in a court filing related to the subpoenas that the actions were part of "an escalating series of attacks on journalists to intimidate them from engaging in reporting that the Trump Administration openly detests."
On Friday night, Trump is set to address the White House Correspondents' Association annual dinner, an affair rescheduled after a gunman opened fire near the Washington Hilton ballroom during the event in April. Trump said in June that he didn't yet know if he would deliver the same address he had planned for the first dinner, noting that it contained "rather nasty statements, at least as it concerns certain people."
The Wall Street Journal and its reporters received grand jury subpoenas dated March 4 that sought information related to a February article about Pentagon concerns regarding an extended military campaign against Iran. A Dow Jones spokesperson said the subpoenas were later withdrawn.
The Washington Post reported last month that one of its journalists was subpoenaed related to "sensitive reporting about a national security matter" and that the subpoena was later withdrawn.
FBI agents in January searched the Virginia home of Post reporter Hannah Natanson and seized her devices. They said they were investigating a government contractor who was charged with unlawful retention of national defense information.
Separately, Trump has defamation suits pending against the New York Times, the Journal and the BBC, while other such cases have been dismissed or settled.
FBI Director Kash Patel has a defamation suit pending against the Atlantic and one of its writers. "No one has a right to lob unfounded accusations without a response. Director Patel, as well as any Trump administration official, has a right to defend themselves," the FBI said in a statement. The Atlantic has said the suit is meritless.
The new pressure on publications has very practical implications. News organizations are increasingly consulting with criminal-defense lawyers, prompted by administration rhetoric likening reporting to illegal activity.
Meanwhile, demand for insurance that covers legal costs related to libel claims increased nationwide and reversed a long downward trend, said Joanne Richardson, chief executive of Mutual Insurance Co., a top provider of media liability coverage. Last year, Mutual saw a 15% increase in media-liability-insurance inquiries from local newspapers that weren't previously insured, she said.
Mutual provides media liability coverage for the Journal.
Media lawyers say the costs associated with defamation litigation have soared in recent years, as more lawsuits reach the discovery phase.
The terms under which members of the press can formally access government officials have changed dramatically during Trump's second term, including at the White House and the Pentagon.
The New York Times and Barnes have sued the Pentagon and related officials twice, alleging their policies violated free-speech and due-process rights and were retaliatory. A federal judge ruled in the Times's favor, though the Pentagon has appealed.
A spokesman said that the Defense Department is "the most transparent" in American history and that its new policies were intended to support national security.
Press access and related battles have trickled down to the local level, too.
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, a legal nonprofit that works mainly with independent journalists and smaller outlets, has received nearly 1,600 requests for assistance since October. That's up by more than 50% from the same period a year earlier.
Before the Times published its July 8 article about the Qatari airplane, a senior FBI official contacted a reporter and a top editor, asking them to hold the article because of security concerns. The FBI official also asked the Times to disclose its sources, which the paper refused to do, a Times spokesman said.
By July 10, FBI agents had served subpoenas to Barnes and his colleagues, Eric Lipton and Eric Schmitt. They tried unsuccessfully to serve reporters Adam Goldman, who lives in London, and Tyler Pager. Agents showed up late that night at Goldman's father's home in suburban New York, according to a person familiar with the matter.
Before the Justice Department agreed to withdraw the subpoenas, Lipton said that the requests for information had a "significant chilling effect." He wrote in a declaration filed with the court last week that former government officials have been reluctant to engage, concerned about becoming targets for speaking about "topics that are neither sensitive nor confidential."
First Amendment law used to be a fairly quiet practice, said Theodore Boutrous, a Gibson Dunn partner representing the New York Times in the Pentagon lawsuits.
"We would have a big First Amendment battle maybe once or twice every three or four years," he said. "You have once-in-a-lifetime cases now happening once a month."
Write to Alexandra Bruell at alexandra.bruell@wsj.com, Melissa Korn at Melissa.Korn@wsj.com and Jessica Toonkel at jessica.toonkel@wsj.com
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
July 24, 2026 09:44 ET (13:44 GMT)
Copyright (c) 2026 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Comments