FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
New York, July 20, 2026 — The New York Times reported today that the Trump administration issued third-party subpoenas seeking communications not only of journalists’ phone and text records but those of their relatives, including spouses and parents.
The subpoenas were part of the government’s investigation into the source of reporting that President Donald Trump’s Qatari-gifted Air Force One replacement was deemed unsafe to fly him back from the NATO summit in Turkey because, despite hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars spent to retrofit the plane, it still was not up to the standards of the existing Air Force One. Trump appears to have later admitted the plane needed a security boost, telling reporters it is now being “maxed out.”
The following can be attributed to Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Chief of Advocacy Seth Stern:
“Even the Mafia says families are off limits. It’s gross that the administration — in its never-ending effort to harass and intimidate reporters who reveal its incompetence — is going after the communications of journalists’ relatives.
“The administration’s own guidelines say pursuing journalists is a last resort. But instead, it’s looking for any excuse to snoop on reporters and their relatives, because this has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with chilling journalism. They’re even seeking records from months before the report they claim they’re investigating.
“The Times’ reporting actually bolstered national security by ensuring that Trump and those who travel with him, including journalists, aren’t flying on an unsafe plane to serve the president’s personal vanity. Trump’s hangers-on should be sending the Times thank-you cards, not subpoenas.”
FPF is also suing the Department of Justice for the legal memorandum that reportedly justified the acceptance of the jet. We were forced to sue after the DOJ told us it would take 620 days to respond to our Freedom of Information Act request for the memo.
Please contact us if you would like further comment.




