Justice Department withdraws rare subpoenas targeting Washington Post, Wall Street Journal reporters

The Justice Department backed away from an extraordinary bid to force Washington Post and Wall Street Journal reporters before a federal grand jury, withdrawing subpoenas that had been fought in sealed court filings. The retreat closed one chapter of a leak investigation tied to national security reporting, but it also underscored how aggressively prosecutors had moved to compel journalists’ records and testimony in secret.

Among those targeted was Washington Post national security reporter Ellen Nakashima. The Wall Street Journal said three of its journalists received subpoenas dated March 4, 2026, connected to a Feb. 23 article about warnings from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other Pentagon officials to President Donald Trump about the risks of an extended military campaign against Iran. None of the journalists testified before the grand jury.

Subpoenas directing reporters to appear before a grand jury are described as exceedingly rare, which is what made this case stand out even among contentious leak investigations. The Justice Department defended the action by saying it was trying to protect soldiers and other personnel who could be harmed by leaks of classified information. The Wall Street Journal countered that the subpoenas were an attack on constitutionally protected newsgathering and said it would vigorously oppose them.

Press-freedom groups moved quickly to the same conclusion. The Committee to Protect Journalists demanded that the Justice Department immediately withdraw the subpoenas, while the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press warned that targeting journalists in this way can threaten source confidentiality and press freedom. The backlash reflected a broader fear inside news organizations and First Amendment circles that the government was testing how far it could go in prying into sensitive reporting about U.S. military action against Iran.

The reversal also raises the question that now hangs over the episode: whether the administration is making a durable break from past leak-investigation tactics, or simply stepping back after encountering legal resistance. Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, has already drawn scrutiny over a more aggressive posture toward forcing journalists to reveal sources, including a reported rollback of prior restrictions on obtaining reporters’ records. For now, the subpoenas are gone, but the underlying fight over how the government pursues leaks, and how much secrecy it can impose on the press, remains very much alive.