2026-07-14T10:04:06.34Z / reuters.com
美国纽约南区联邦检察官杰伊·克莱顿于2025年12月10日在纽约市新闻发布会上发言。路透社/吉娜·穆恩/档案照片 购买授权，打开新标签页
纽约，7月14日（路透社）——在报道了总统唐纳德·特朗普乘坐卡塔尔捐赠的新版“空军一号”航班的安全担忧后，《纽约时报》记者收到了传票，要求他们周三在曼哈顿联邦大陪审团面前作证。
以下是关于在刑事案件中强迫记者作证的法律规定，以及《纽约时报》可能如何对抗这些传票。
通过《每日案卷》新闻简报将最新法律新闻直接发送到您的收件箱，开启您的早晨。在此注册。
记者为何被传唤作证？
《纽约时报》称，曼哈顿联邦检察官杰伊·克莱顿于周五签发了这些传票，要求记者周三就“一项涉嫌违反联邦刑法的行为”作证。
《纽约时报》执行主编乔·卡恩在路透社查阅到的周六内部邮件中表示，有五名记者“在报道了卡塔尔捐赠的喷气式飞机的安全缺陷迫使总统近期国际旅行使用更老旧的政府专机后”收到了传票。
《纽约时报》的首席律师称这些传票是公然恐吓记者的企图，并誓言将进行抗争。美国司法部周五拒绝证实或否认这些传票，但告诉路透社，他们的目标是机密信息的泄密者，而非记者。
这架新专机是由国防承包商L3Harris Technologies（LHX.N，打开新标签页）改装的波音747（BA.N，打开新标签页）。
法律对此有何规定？
记者在面对联邦传票时享有的法律保护有限。
美国最高法院曾裁定，保障新闻自由的美国宪法第一修正案并不允许记者拒绝传票，除非传票是出于恶意或为了骚扰他们而签发的。
此后，联邦法院承认了一项有限特权，会权衡信息是否必要、是否可在其他渠道获取以及其他因素是否优先于新闻自由。这种保护在民事案件中最强，而在刑事大陪审团调查中最弱。
包括纽约州在内的许多州都有保护记者消息来源的屏蔽法，但联邦层面并无类似法律，且州屏蔽法不适用于联邦传票。
这是否罕见？
传唤记者需要最高层批准，并且受美国司法部政策的限制。
共和党和民主党政府都曾试图强迫记者透露消息来源，但新闻团体表示，特朗普的共和党政府过于随意地使用传票和搜查令，包括针对《华盛顿邮报》和《华尔街日报》的记者。他们还指责特朗普利用政府权力和私人诉讼来恐吓和骚扰新闻媒体。
特朗普政府表示，他们正在对泄密者提起刑事指控，而非针对记者。
《纽约时报》可以提出哪些抗辩理由？
《纽约时报》表示将对抗这些传票。该报可以请求法官驳回传票，理由是传票范围过宽、出于恶意签发或违反第一修正案保护。
他们还可以辩称，司法部违反了内部政策，该政策要求检察官权衡信息是否必要、是否可在其他渠道获取，并首先与媒体机构进行协商。这些政策在法庭上不具有可执行性，但法官在考虑传票的合法性时可以予以参考。
此前，在《华盛顿邮报》和《华尔街日报》的记者通过密封的法庭文件提出质疑后，司法部撤回了针对他们的大陪审团传票。
据《纽约时报》援引匿名消息人士的报道，政府曾试图从《华盛顿邮报》获取其关于美国在委内瑞拉军事行动报道的相关信息，从《华尔街日报》获取其关于警告特朗普提防与伊朗开战的文章的相关信息。
今年1月，新闻自由团体批评联邦调查局在一次泄密调查中罕见地搜查了《华盛顿邮报》一名记者的住所。
如果记者拒绝作证会发生什么？
如果检察官提供豁免权，记者将丧失第五修正案中反对自证其罪的权利，如果拒绝作证可能会被裁定藐视法庭，面临监禁或罚款，直到他们配合为止。《纽约时报》可以单独对藐视法庭的裁决提出质疑。
本报道由杰克·奎因在纽约撰写；编辑：诺琳·瓦尔德和克里斯托弗·库欣
我们的标准：汤森路透信托原则，打开新标签页
Explainer: Can prosecutors compel New York Times journalists to testify in leak probe?
2026-07-14T10:04:06.34Z / reuters.com
Jay Clayton, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, speaks during a press conference in New York City, U.S., December 10, 2025. REUTERS/Jeenah Moon/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab
NEW YORK, July 14 (Reuters) – New York Times journalists have been issued subpoenas seeking to force them to testify before a Manhattan federal grand jury on Wednesday after reporting on security concerns over President Donald Trump’s flight on the new Qatari-donated Air Force One.
Here’s what the law says about compelling journalists to testify in criminal cases and how the New York Times might fight the subpoenas.
Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.
WHY ARE THE JOURNALISTS BEING CALLED TO TESTIFY?
Manhattan U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton issued the subpoenas on Friday, the Times said, ordering journalists to testify on Wednesday “in regard to an alleged violation of federal criminal law.”
Times Executive Editor Joe Kahn said in a Saturday internal email reviewed by Reuters that five reporters were issued subpoenas “after they reported on security shortcomings of the Qatari-donated jet that forced the president to use an older government plane for his recent international travel.”
The Times’ top lawyer called the subpoenas a brazen attempt to intimidate journalists and vowed to fight them. The Justice Department would not confirm or deny the subpoenas but told Reuters on Friday it was targeting leakers of classified information, not journalists.
The new plane is a Boeing
(BA.N), opens new tab
747 refitted by defense contractor L3Harris Technologies
(LHX.N), opens new tab
.
WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?
Journalists have limited legal protections against federal subpoenas.
The Supreme Court has held the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees press freedoms, does not allow reporters to refuse subpoenas unless they are issued in bad faith or to harass them.
Federal courts have since recognized a qualified privilege weighing whether the information is essential, obtainable elsewhere and whether other factors outweigh press freedom. That protection is strongest in civil cases and weakest in criminal grand jury investigations.
Many states, including New York, have shield laws protecting journalists’ sources. No federal equivalent exists, and state shield laws do not apply to federal subpoenas.
IS THIS UNUSUAL?
Subpoenaing journalists requires top-level approval and is subject to limitations under Justice Department policies.
Both Republican and Democratic administrations have sought to compel journalists to reveal sources in leak probes, but press groups say Trump’s Republican administration has used subpoenas and search warrants too freely, including against the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal. They also accuse Trump of using government power and private lawsuits to bully and harass the news media.
The Trump administration has said it is pursuing criminal charges against leakers, not targeting journalists.
WHAT COULD THE TIMES ARGUE?
The Times has said it will fight the subpoenas. The newspaper could ask a judge to quash the subpoenas as overbroad, issued in bad faith or violating First Amendment protections.
It could also argue the Justice Department violated internal policy requiring prosecutors to weigh whether the information is essential, obtainable elsewhere and to negotiate with outlets first. Those policies are not enforceable in court, but judges can weigh them in considering the legitimacy of subpoenas.
The Justice Department previously withdrew grand jury subpoenas against Washington Post and Wall Street Journal reporters after they challenged them in sealed court filings.
The government had sought information from the Post about its reporting on U.S. military action in Venezuela, and from the Journal about an article concerning warnings to Trump about war with Iran, according to a New York Times report citing anonymous sources.
In January, press freedom groups criticized the FBI for taking the rare step of searching the home of a Washington Post reporter as part of a leak probe.
WHAT HAPPENS IF THE REPORTERS REFUSE TO TESTIFY?
If prosecutors offer immunity, the journalists lose their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and could be held in contempt for refusing to testify, risking jail time or fines until they comply. The Times could separately challenge a contempt ruling.
Reporting by Jack Queen in New York; Editing by Noeleen Walder and Christopher Cushing
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab