Trump summons New York Times journalists… widespread anger and warnings against media intimidation | information

In a new escalation of the confrontation between the administration of US President Donald Trump and the media, the Justice Department’s decision to summon a number of New York Times journalists to testify before a federal jury sparked a wide wave of criticism and warnings, amid accusations that the administration was trying to intimidate journalists, in exchange for an official defense that considered that the investigation was targeting leakers of confidential information, not the journalists themselves.

The summonses came after the newspaper published two reports on security concerns related to the new presidential plane, as the reports revealed that the president left Türkiye on board the old presidential plane based on the recommendation of the Secret Service.

Trump waves his hand while boarding the presidential plane heading to China (French). According to the newspaper, four of its journalists, Julian E. Barnes, Eric Lipton, Tyler Pager, and Eric Schmidt, received subpoenas to appear before a federal jury in Manhattan, while federal agents in some cases delivered the summons directly to the homes of journalists, in a move that the newspaper described as an unprecedented escalation in pressure on the media.

New York Times: An attempt to intimidate the press

The New York Times strongly condemned the action, with David McCraw, chief legal counsel for the newspaper’s newsroom, saying that the appearance of federal law enforcement agents at journalists’ doors “should shock the conscience of every American who believes in the Constitution and freedom of the press.”

He added that the newspaper’s journalists “report the facts and protect the public’s right to know how the government is managed and taxpayers’ money is spent,” considering that this step is “nothing but an attempt to prevent the public from knowing what is going on by intimidating journalists and preventing them from doing their work.”

Criticism from Democrats

One of the most prominent critics was Chuck Schumer, the Democratic minority leader in the Senate, who described the summonses as “a scandalous overreach and a disgusting misuse of federal law enforcement agencies,” considering that journalists “have the right and duty to report the truth.”

In turn, Senator Chris Coons, a member of the Senate from the Democratic Party, said that “press coverage of issues related to the national interest is a public service and not a crime,” considering that the summonses represent “a new assault on the First Amendment to the US Constitution and an attempt to silence journalists whose coverage the administration does not like.”

Support from institutions defending press freedom

The White House Correspondents Association announced its full support for New York Times journalists, affirming its solidarity with them in the face of the summonses, in a position that reflects the fears of press institutions about the repercussions of the case on freedom of media coverage.

Richard Stengel, an American journalist and former official in the US State Department, also considered that the issue is entirely related to the type of journalism protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution, because it deals with national security and spending taxpayer money, stressing that “reports that cause embarrassment to the president remain constitutionally protected.”

As for Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, he believed that the summoning of New York Times journalists represented “the latest example of Trump’s misuse of the criminal system for personal purposes,” considering that the real motive was anger over the publication of information that embarrassed the president.

Jane Miller, an American investigative journalist, said that the summonses represent “more pressure on the free press,” noting that the journalists were summoned because of their reports that addressed the reasons for Trump not using the new presidential plane.

Lauren E. Van Off, an American political commentator, also called on the courts to reject these summons, based on judicial precedents that considered some investigative procedures with journalists to violate the protection provided by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Votes in favor of the measure

On the other hand, some conservative voices supported the administration’s position. Rachel Alexander, a conservative lawyer and political commentator, said that American law “is clear in allowing journalists to be summoned – and not criminally prosecuted – when it comes to leaking confidential information,” considering that the New York Times is trying to portray the case as an attack on the press while, from its point of view, it relates to an investigation into the crime of leaking information affecting national security.

The US Department of Justice’s Rapid Response Account also republished the ministry’s position, stressing that all US departments have dealt with crimes of leaking information related to national security, and that investigations will continue against those who leak confidential information, while emphasizing that journalists are not directly targeted.

A new test of the relationship between power and the media

In turn, Michael Greenbaum, a New York Times correspondent and author of the original report, summarized the most prominent developments in the case in a post on the “X” platform, noting that the newspaper’s journalists were forced to appear before a jury, and that federal agents arrived at the homes of some of them, while the newspaper described the move as a “flagrant measure” against freedom of the press.

The case brings back to the forefront the renewed debate in the United States about the boundaries between protecting national security and the right of the media to publish information of public interest, amid warnings that the use of criminal investigation tools against journalists may have an impact that goes beyond this case, and affects the relationship between executive authority and freedom of the press guaranteed by the American Constitution.