Advocates condemn Trump administration's Wall Street Journal subpoenas

Press advocacy and civil liberties groups are criticizing President Donald Trump's administration following a report by the Wall Street Journal that said the news outlet received subpoenas related to its coverage of the ongoing war in Iran.

The newspaper reported May 11 that Trump privately expressed concern about leaks related to the war to acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, citing unnamed “administration officials familiar with the matter.” One official said a sticky note with the word “treason” was placed atop a stack of articles that concerned the administration, according to the news organization.  

The story said the newspaper "received grand jury subpoenas dated March 4 for records of Journal reporters." It said they related to a February article that reported top Pentagon officials warned Trump about the risks of going to war against Iran in the days before the president launched "Operation Epic Fury."

“In all circumstances, the Department of Justice follows the facts and applies the law to identify those committing crimes against the United States,” an unnamed Justice Department spokeswoman told the Wall Street Journal. The Department of Justice did not return USA TODAY’s request for comment on the matter. 

A White House official told USA TODAY that administration officials “were rightfully frustrated by illegal leaks of classified information which risked operational security and American lives,” including leaks related to the multiday mission to rescue American airmen whose fighter jet was shot down in Iran in early April. 

The Wall Street Journal's story included a comment from Ashok Sinha, chief communications officer at Dow Jones, which publishes the newspaper, that said the subpoenas "represent an attack on constitutionally protected newsgathering. We will vigorously oppose this effort to stifle and intimidate essential reporting.” 

How are advocacy groups responding?  

PEN America called the subpoenas “alarming” and characterized them as an effort to “intimidate reporters in the hopes of shielding wartime decision-making from the public” in a May 12 news release.  

Tim Richardson, the organization’s journalism and disinformation program director, said confidential sources are “critical” for journalists during wartime and called for an end to the federal government’s investigations of journalists.  

“The White House and Pentagon may be uncomfortable with scrutiny of their decisions, but the Justice Department should know better than to punish constitutionally protected newsgathering,” he said.  

The Freedom of the Press Foundation alleged that the investigation “has nothing to do with ‘national security.’”  

“It’s an outrageous attempt to silence sources, intimidate journalists and bury the truth about President Trump’s unpopular decision to launch a war even his own generals warned against,” Seth Stern, the organization’s chief of advocacy, said on May 12.  

“These subpoenas are a direct threat to the public’s right to know, and the Journal is correct to fight them,” Stern said. “Since the Department of Justice has abandoned the First Amendment, it’s up to the courts to restrain the government’s attempts to crush investigative journalism.”  

Ben Grazda, advocacy manager for Reporters Without Borders North America, similarly accused the Trump administration of "egregious and baseless attacks" and said the organization would defend journalists and their work against such efforts.

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press President Bruce D. Brown said that "intrusion into reporters' relationships with their sources chills independent reporting on the government and ultimately threatens the public's access to information."

How has the administration defended its actions against journalists? 

The Trump administration has previously cited national security concerns in taking certain actions press freedom advocates have characterized as a threat to the First Amendment.   

In response to the FBI’s controversial search of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson’s Virginia home in January as part of an investigation into a government contractor accused of illegally retaining classified documents, then-U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said the administration “will not tolerate illegal leaks of classified information that, when reported, pose a grave risk to our Nation’s national security and the brave men and women who are serving our country.”  

FBI Director Kash Patel also said at the time that Natanson “was found to allegedly be obtaining and reporting classified, sensitive military information from a government contractor – endangering our warfighters and compromising America’s national security.”  

The newspaper has denied wrongdoing in ongoing litigation over the matter. A second judge ruled in early May that the Trump administration could not review the devices it seized in the search.  

What legislation has been proposed to protect journalists?

U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, introduced a bill in March that aims to boost protections for journalists in the wake of the FBI search. The legislation was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 

The Privacy Protection Updates Act is intended to close "loopholes" in the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 that have “been abused by multiple presidential administrations,” including in the January raid, Wyden’s office said. The law generally requires the government to get a subpoena to obtain journalists’ work products.  

The American Civil Liberties Union has advocated for the Protect Reporters from Exploitative State Spying (PRESS) Act to protect journalists and their sources from government probes. The legislation was passed in the House in 2024 but stalled in the Senate.  

In response to the Wall Street Journal subpoenas, ACLU senior policy counsel Jenna Leventoff called for Congress to “immediately reintroduce” the legislation “in order to protect the free press at a time of increasing fragility." 

BrieAnna Frank is a First Amendment reporter at USA TODAY. Reach her at [email protected]. 

USA TODAY's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.