Latest News
- Woman charged after bomb with suspected military-grade explosives seized near Irish border
- International Criminal Court removes chief prosecutor Karim Khan from office
- Trump Orders Warnings on ‘Inaccurate Information’ at Smithsonian Museum
- ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan removed amid sexual misconduct allegations
- Doug Ford’s approval rating drops to 24% amid spending scandal
- Government withdraws subpoenas for New York Times reporters in leak investigation
- Wildfire triggers complete evacuation in Cap Ferret, France, as smoke spreads
- Mark van Bommel outlines vision for disciplined and ambitious team
LIVE German 2025 Election Results as they come in and analysi on who will be the next German Chancellor.
Knowledge Hub
Global Reaction to DE Elections
Woman charged after bomb with suspected military-grade explosives seized near Irish border
2:00 am
Get you up to speed: Woman charged after police seize ‘extremely significant’ bomb on way to Northern Ireland | News World
A woman has been charged with possession of explosives after an advanced car bomb was intercepted by police near the Irish border in County Monaghan. The device, believed to contain military-grade explosives, was seized during an operation targeting dissident republicans, and a second suspect is currently being held in Dublin.
An investigation is ongoing as authorities assess the bomb’s potential impact and the operational context surrounding its interception near the Irish border. A second suspect, a man in his 40s, remains in custody at a Garda station in Dublin while follow-up searches are conducted to gather further evidence.
Garda Commissioner Justin Kelly characterised the bomb seizure as “extremely concerning,” highlighting that the ongoing threat from dissident republicans remains significant, while Minister for Justice Jim O’Callaghan expressed encouragement over the successful arrest related to the incident. The investigation is ongoing as further searches are conducted, with one additional suspect in custody, underlining the commitment to combatting this security threat.
What remains unclear — The potential motivations behind the woman charged and her connection to the dissident republican group remain unexplained.
Woman charged after bomb with suspected military-grade explosives seized near Irish border
Police have seized an ‘advanced’ device near the Irish border (Picture: Artur Widak/NurPhoto)
A woman has been charged after the most significant car bomb found in the Republic of Ireland in a decade was intercepted by police.
Described by Gardaí sources as ‘advanced’ and ‘highly sophisticated’, the bomb was seized in transit near the Irish border in an operation targeting dissident republicans.
Authorities believe it was being moved with the intention of using it in the North.
The intelligence-led swoop saw members of the Garda’s Special Detective Unit stop the vehicle travelling on the N2 south of Carrickmacross, Co. Monaghan, on Wednesday afternoon.
Gardaí then requested the assistance of the Irish Defence Forces EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) team.
Upon completing an examination of the vehicle, the device was found and is understood to have contained suspected military-grade explosives.
Sign up for all of the latest stories
It could potentially have caused ‘significant damage’, but further analysis is required to understand the full extent of such.
The vehicle was driven by a woman in her 20s, who was arrested at the scene under section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act.
Following a stint in custody, law student Isobella Perrie Sullivan, 25, was charged in connection with the case and granted bail after appearing before a special sitting of Trim District Court in Co. Meath, charged with possession of explosives.
During a search of Sullivan’s vehicle, a bag was found in the rear seat, which contained Semtex and a detonator, the court heard.
Gardaí objected to bail for Sullivan, of Abbeylands Park, Clane, Co. Kildare, before defence solicitor Gavin Booth, of Phoenix Law, said his client had been asked to take a bag to the north and had not been aware of what was in it.
Judge Raymond Finnegan agreed to allow bail under several conditions, which included an independent surety of 15,000 euros, surrendering her passport, an address approved by Gardaí, a mobile phone number on which to be available 24/7, signing in every day at Naas Garda Station, and a curfew of 9pm to 7am.
Garda Commissioner Justin Kelly said the incident is ‘extremely concerning’ (Picture: Brian Lawless/PA Wire)
A bag was found in the rear seat of Isobella Perrie Sullivan’s car, containing Semtex and a detonator (Picture: Damien Eagers/PA Wire)
Meanwhile, a second suspect, a man in his 40s, is being held at a Garda station in Dublin while follow-up searches are carried out.
Confirming details of the operation, Garda Commissioner Justin Kelly spoke to the press at a Garda graduation event in Co. Tipperary today.
‘To be clear, what we found was an extremely significant seizure,’ he said. ‘So this was an explosive device.’
Commissioner Kelly added: ‘Any seizure of this nature is really concerning.
‘However, we certainly know that there are a small minority of dissident republicans who did not agree with the Good Friday Agreement; they did not put weapons and explosives [out of use]. They didn’t, you know, go through with the proper process in relation to decommissioning.
‘So that is something that we continue to deal with.
PSNI Assistant Chief Constable Davy Beck reiterated commitment to keeping the public safe (Picture: David Young/PA Wire)
‘There’s a small minority of these individuals; I would describe them as radicalised republicans, and this is a threat that we’re going to continue to face for some time in An Garda Síochána.
‘We work very closely with our colleagues in PSNI (Police Service of Northern Ireland) and the intelligence services in the UK to deal with this threat.
‘But I want to commend the members of An Garda Síochána who are involved in this operation.’
Ireland’s Minister for Justice Jim O’Callaghan also described the seizure as ‘very worrying’, but said he feels ‘encouraged’ that the authorities were ‘able to apprehend the suspect’.
What is the Good Friday Agreement?
Also known as the Belfast Agreement, the Good Friday Agreement was reached on Good Friday, April 10, 1998, designed to bring an end to three decades of conflict.
Known as the Troubles, the conflict cost the lives of more than 3,500 people due to the divide between unionists who wanted Northern Ireland to stay within the UK and nationalists who wanted it to become part of the Republic of Ireland.
As explained by the Northern Irish Assembly, the Agreement was reached between the British and Irish governments on how Northern Ireland should be governed.
The talks leading to the Agreement addressed issues that had caused the conflict during previous decades. The aim was to establish a new, devolved government for Northern Ireland in which unionists and nationalists would share power.
He added that there is undoubtedly evidence of ‘an ongoing threat in respect of dissident republican activity’.
‘But I also know that there’s been great cooperation between the PSNI and An Garda Síochána, and I think I suppose the developments recently and the work of An Garda Síochána indicate the benefits of having that close cooperation between the PSNI and An Garda Síochána.’
Commending the Gardaí for their work in defusing the bomb, he noted that the incident ‘didn’t become a real threat to the public’.
In a further statement, PSNI Assistant Chief Constable Davy Beck said police on both sides of the Irish border shared a ‘joint commitment’ in tackling the dissident republican terror threat.
An investigation is ongoing into the extent of the damage the bomb could’ve caused (Picture: Brian Lawless/PA Wire)
Welcoming the seizure and the arrests made, he stressed the dedication to ‘keeping communities safe’ as they support the ongoing investigation and liaise closely with An Garda Síochána.
Northern Ireland Secretary Sir Chris Bryant commended the Garda for intercepting the device, too, explaining that their action was ‘quick’ and ‘decisive’.
‘Intercepting a dangerous device like this undoubtedly saved lives and kept communities safe on both sides of the border,’ he posted on social media.
‘Strong cross-border security cooperation remains as vital as ever.’
DUP leader Gavin Robinson described the development as ‘chilling’, questioning whether the Irish government needs to increase its focus on tackling dissident republicanism.
‘If terrorists are capable of assembling sophisticated explosive devices and moving them towards the border, then it is entirely legitimate to ask whether the threat is being fully recognised and whether sufficient resources and operational focus are being directed towards disrupting these organisations before they reach this stage,’ the east Belfast MP said.
Comment now
Comments
Add WTX as a Preferred Source on Google
Breaking News
Never miss the biggest stories with breaking news alerts in your inbox.
International Criminal Court removes chief prosecutor Karim Khan from office
1:00 am
International Criminal Court removes chief prosecutor Karim Khan from office
Historic Dismissal
Member states of the International Criminal Court (ICC) voted to dismiss chief prosecutor Karim Khan, marking the first removal of a chief prosecutor in the court’s history.
Member states of the International Criminal Court (ICC) voted to dismiss chief prosecutor Karim Khan, marking the first removal of a chief prosecutor in the court’s history.
Historical Significance
The dismissal of Karim Khan by the ICC’s 125 member states represents an unprecedented development, marking the first removal of a chief prosecutor in the institution’s history.
The dismissal of Karim Khan by the ICC’s 125 member states represents an unprecedented development, marking the first removal of a chief prosecutor in the institution’s history.
Historic Action
“Karim Khan’s removal marks an unprecedented step for the ICC, signalling robust accountability measures within the institution,” stated an anonymous diplomat familiar with the proceedings.
“Karim Khan’s removal marks an unprecedented step for the ICC, signalling robust accountability measures within the institution,” stated an anonymous diplomat familiar with the proceedings.
ICC chief prosecutor removed from post over sexual misconduct allegations
By Manuela Scarpellini & Greta Ruffino
Published on •Updated
Member states of the International Criminal Court (ICC) removed chief prosecutor Karim Khan from office on Friday, diplomats told the Associated Press, marking the first dismissal of a chief prosecutor in the court’s history.
The ICC’s 125 member states voted by a large majority to remove Khan from office following allegations of sexual misconduct, which he has repeatedly denied.
The move marks the first-ever removal of an ICC chief prosecutor. Khan had been temporarily suspended in June while the allegations were reviewed after an internal report found he had committed serious misconduct, a finding he strongly rejects.
According to documents seen by the Associated Press, Khan had a sexual relationship with the woman and allegedly tried to discourage her from pursuing her complaint.
An independent oversight report found that he had committed “serious misconduct”, though Khan denies the allegations.
Khan’s removal comes as the ICC faces mounting pressure from US President Donald Trump administration, which has already imposed sanctions on him and a dozen other ICC employees.
The sanctions were imposed in response to the ICC’s arrest warrants for senior Israeli officials, including Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, over the war in Gaza, as well as the court’s investigations into US personnel in Afghanistan.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said last week that the United States was launching a “comprehensive campaign to crush the threat that the International Criminal Court poses to US sovereignty”.
Rubio said the US would pressure member states to withdraw from the institution, sanction organisations that cooperate with the court and deny its employees entry to the United States. Countries that “benefit from the US security umbrella” are to be urged to reject the court’s jurisdiction over US citizens.
Khan’s removal has no immediate impact on the arrest warrants already issued. Decisions on whether they remain in force are made solely by ICC judges.
Trump Orders Warnings on ‘Inaccurate Information’ at Smithsonian Museum
12:01 am
Media Lens: Trump Orders Warnings on ‘Inaccurate Information’ at Smithsonian Museum
Trump orders warnings installed at Smithsonian Museum.
Trump has ordered warnings to be placed at the Smithsonian History Museum regarding “inaccurate information.” This decision has been reported in multiple sources including NBC News and Politico.
What happened
Former President Trump has ordered warnings to be placed on content deemed “inaccurate” at the Smithsonian History Museum. This directive follows his ongoing criticism of historical portrayals in museums and other institutions.
Recent reports detail that the signage will alert visitors to what the Trump administration identifies as misleading information. The initiative is part of a broader effort to influence how history is presented in public spaces.
Key facts
- Trump has ordered warnings to be placed outside the Smithsonian History Museum.
- The warnings are intended to alert visitors about “inaccurate information” displayed.
- The directive comes amidst a broader scrutiny of educational content by the administration.
- This decision has sparked debate regarding censorship and historical accuracy.
- Multiple news outlets, including The New York Times and NBC News, are reporting on the story.
Where coverage differs
- The New York Times emphasizes the placement of warnings at the Smithsonian museum, while Politico discusses the implications of the warnings in relation to content accuracy.
- NBC News foregrounds the reaction from various stakeholders regarding the warnings, rather than focusing solely on the decision itself, as seen in The New York Times.
- Politico prioritizes the political motivations behind the warnings over the logistical aspects that NBC News highlights.
One story, four angles
The New York Times – Trump Orders Warnings Placed at ‘Inaccurate’ Smithsonian History Museum
Publication: The New York Times | Primary framing pattern: political | Tone: critical | Intensity: 7/10 | Sentiment: negative | Legal precision: high
Expand
Espresso Shot: The New York Times highlights Trump’s actions toward the Smithsonian as a politically motivated effort to control narratives. The article emphasizes governmental influence over historical interpretation, framing it as a troubling intrusion into institutional independence.
Publication emphasis: The main focus is on the political implications of Trump’s directive relating to museum operations.
Framing analysis: The article foregrounds the political motivations behind Trump’s actions, while secondary issues include public reaction and historical accuracy.
Bias: Selection: Focuses on negative reactions to Trump’s directive. Language: Words like “inaccurate” and “warnings” suggest a critical stance. Omission: Lacks coverage of supporters’ views on the directive.
Assessment: The article provides a critical view of Trump’s influence on museums, emphasizing potential political overreach.
Politico – Trump orders content warnings installed outside Smithsonian history museum
Publication: Politico | Primary framing pattern: political | Tone: skeptical | Intensity: 6/10 | Sentiment: mixed | Legal precision: moderate
Expand
Espresso Shot: Politico discusses Trump’s order for signage at the Smithsonian, suggesting a misguided attempt at protecting public discourse. The article points to implications for historical interpretation and observers’ doubts about political motivations.
Publication emphasis: The focus is on the political ramifications of Trump’s actions and their effect on cultural institutions.
Framing analysis: Emphasizes skepticism about the need for warnings and political intentions while minimizing potential public support for the measure.
Bias: Selection: Highlights skepticism and criticism from experts. Language: Describes the actions as “orders” and “warnings,” hinting at authoritarianism. Omission: Limited mention of pro-Trump viewpoints.
Assessment: The reporting tends to lean critical without fully acknowledging differing perspectives on Trump’s directive.
NBC News – Trump orders signage warning visitors of ‘inaccurate information’ at Smithsonian
Publication: NBC News | Primary framing pattern: political | Tone: neutral | Intensity: 5/10 | Sentiment: neutral | Legal precision: moderate
Expand
Espresso Shot: NBC News reports on Trump’s mandate for signage intended to warn of potential inaccuracies at the Smithsonian. The piece addresses the public’s mixed responses and underscores the significance of transparency in public institutions.
Publication emphasis: The report focuses on the administrative decision and its implications for cultural institutions.
Framing analysis: While noting the administrative aspect, it provides both criticisms and defenses regarding the necessity of warnings, balancing perspectives.
Bias: Selection: Includes a range of reactions to the policy. Language: Utilizes straightforward language without loaded terms. Omission: Somewhat lacking in deep exploration of potential political motivations.
Assessment: The article presents a more neutral tone, balancing various views without delving too deep into political implications.
Food for thought
Politico frames Trump’s directive for warning signs at the Smithsonian as a “content warning” intended to guide tourists amid allegations of “inaccurate information,” indicating a focus on governmental transparency. In contrast, The New York Times describes the initiative with a tone that heightens tensions, referring to the potential for widespread misinformation and questioning the integrity of historical narratives. Thus, while Politico utilizes the strongest legal framing by emphasizing the operative transparency of the notice, The New York Times adopts a more escalatory approach, framing the issue as a fundamental threat to historical accuracy. The facts do not change. What changes is where scrutiny lands.
ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan removed amid sexual misconduct allegations
11:01 pm
Media Lens: ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan removed amid sexual misconduct allegations
Karim Khan has been removed from his position as the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC). This decision comes amid allegations of sexual misconduct against him.
Quick links: What has happened | Status quo | Confirmed facts | Preconceptions | Elisions | One story, four angles | Related links
What has happened
Karim Khan, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), has been removed from his position following allegations of sexual misconduct. This decision was confirmed by a vote among ICC member states, taking place at The Hague, Netherlands.
The allegations against Khan were characterized as “politicized” by certain sources, indicating a divided response to the claims. The special session held by the ICC aimed to address these concerns and concluded with a call for new leadership to restore trust in the institution’s integrity.
Status quo
Karim Khan, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), has been removed from his post following a vote by ICC member states. This decision comes amid allegations of sexual misconduct against him, which were described as politically motivated by Khan’s supporters. The official announcement regarding Khan’s ousting was made shortly after the vote, reflecting the serious nature of the allegations and their impact on his role at the ICC.
Confirmed facts
- Karim Khan has been removed from his position as chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
- The removal was enacted by a vote from the ICC’s member states.
- The decision to oust Khan followed allegations of sexual misconduct against him.
- Multiple sources reported that concerns about Khan’s leadership and conduct influenced the decision.
Preconceptions
- **Al Jazeera** prioritizes the controversial nature of the removal with a focus on the “politicized” claims against Khan, while **The Guardian** highlights the procedural aspect of his ousting as the ICC prosecutor.
- **AP News** emphasizes the allegations of sexual misconduct surrounding Khan’s removal, contrasting with **CNN**, which leads with the vote by member states to dismiss him without delving deeply into the allegations.
- **The Guardian** places lesser emphasis on the controversy, framing the situation more as a standard procedural matter compared to **Al Jazeera**, which stresses the implications of political influence in the decision.
- **AP News** adopts a tone of urgency regarding the implications of the allegations, while **CNN** maintains a straightforward reporting style, focusing on the voting process rather than the underlying accusations.
Elisions
- The ICC’s decision to remove prosecutor Karim Khan is detailed in reports from Al Jazeera and The Guardian, but lacks an in-depth analysis of the influence of member state politics, which CNN highlights by mentioning the “vote of dismissal” aspect.
- AP News emphasizes the details of the sexual misconduct allegations leading to Khan’s removal, whereas The Guardian focuses more on the procedural aspects of his ousting, thus creating a gap in understanding the allegations’ severity and context.
- While both Al Jazeera and CNN report on the timing of Khan’s dismissal following the allegations, they do not discuss the potential implications for ongoing ICC investigations or cases, a topic briefly touched upon by AP News.
One story, four angles
Al Jazeera – ICC prosecutor Khan removed over ‘politicised’ sex abuse claims: Sources
Publication: Al Jazeera | Intensity: (6/10) | Sentiment: Neutral | Legal precision: Moderate
Expand
Espresso Shot: The focus is on the implications of Khan’s removal, described as ‘politicised’, which may suggest external influences affecting judicial independence.
Key differences:
- Comparison of terms: Al Jazeera used “politicised”, indicating a blame on political influence, while others might highlight “allegations” more neutrally.
- Placement of sources: Al Jazeera emphasizes “sources” early, suggesting that the report may rely on insider information rather than official statements.
- Focus on ‘claims’: By framing the situation as “claims”, it raises doubts about the validity of the accusations from the start.
Bias: Selection: Highlights political angles predominantly | Language: Usage of “politicised” implications narrows interpretation | Omission: Less focus on the implications for the victims of the alleged sexual misconduct.
Assessment: Readers may initially believe that political motivations are hindering impartial judicial processes.
The Guardian – Karim Khan ousted as prosecutor of international criminal court
Publication: The Guardian | Intensity: (7/10) | Sentiment: Negative | Legal precision: High
Expand
Espresso Shot: The emphasis is on Khan’s ousting, framing it as a definitive action which might indicate a serious breach of conduct.
Key differences:
- Directness: “ousted” signals a forceful action, contrasting with softer language that may suggest voluntary resignation.
- Context emphasis: Uses “international criminal court”, which reinforces the stature and gravity of the role being filled.
- Chronology: The logical sequence presented leads the reader to view the decision as sudden rather than part of a drawn-out process.
Bias: Selection: Focuses on the removal, potentially omitting defenses or perspectives in Khan’s favor | Language: “ousted” has a highly negative connotation | Omission: Minimal representation of Khan’s potential contributions before the allegations.
Assessment: Readers are led to perceive a strong, unfavorable judgment against Khan immediately.
AP News – ICC chief prosecutor removed from post over sexual misconduct allegations
Publication: AP News | Intensity: (8/10) | Sentiment: Negative | Legal precision: High
Expand
Espresso Shot: The focus is on the gravity of the misconduct allegations which implies severe repercussions for Khan.
Key differences:
- Detailing ‘allegations’: The phrasing “over sexual misconduct allegations” foregrounds the severity of accusations more so than other outlets.
- Legal framing: AP tends to report with precise legal terminology, fostering a sense of official and documented claims.
- Immediate consequences: The structure stresses immediate action taken against Khan, promoting urgency over deliberation.
Bias: Selection: Highlights the misconduct allegations primarily, potentially biasing the context of his professional history | Language: “removed” evokes a punitive sentiment | Omission: Lack of mention about Khan’s effectiveness or achievements during his tenure.
Assessment: Readers are initially led to believe that the allegations are both credible and severe, warranting immediate action.
CNN – ICC member states vote to dismiss chief prosecutor Khan
Publication: CNN | Intensity: (5/10) | Sentiment: Neutral | Legal precision: Moderate
Expand
Espresso Shot: The dismissal is framed as a collective decision, which may suggest broader consensus regarding Khan’s leadership.
Key differences:
- Framing: The word “vote” implies democracy and collective agreement, contrasting with notions of solitude or unilateral decisions found in other outlets.
- Implication of support: Suggesting that multiple member states participated invokes a sense of legitimacy in the decision.
- Structured narrative: CNN organizes information around reactions from member states, providing balanced perspectives vs. individual allegations.
Bias: Selection: Focuses on the voting process rather than the gravity of allegations | Language: “vote” connotes a more democratic, positive turn of events | Omission: Less clarity on the details of misconduct claims compared to other sources.
Assessment: Readers may first believe that the dismissal reflects a consensus that is positive rather than punitive.
In comparing the coverage on the removal of ICC prosecutor Karim Khan, Al Jazeera emphasized the alleged politicization behind the decision, framing it with the most escalatory concerns about institutional integrity. The Guardian, while noting the dismissal, focused on procedural aspects and reactions from member states, offering a relatively moderate view. CNN presented the event as a significant institutional shift, but without diving deeply into the implications. Overall, Al Jazeera’s approach escalates the narrative, while The Guardian maintains a more measured tone. The facts do not change. What changes is where scrutiny lands.
Related links
Al Jazeera
ICC prosecutor Khan removed over ‘politicised’ sex abuse claims: Sources
The Guardian
Karim Khan ousted as prosecutor of international criminal court
AP News
ICC chief prosecutor removed from post over sexual misconduct allegations
CNN
Doug Ford’s approval rating drops to 24% amid spending scandal
8:00 pm
Get you up to speed: Doug Ford slumps to 24% approval rating amidst spending scandal
New public opinion research shows the Liberals at 38 per cent, leading ahead of the governing PCs at 33 per cent, in Canada. The NDP follows at 21 per cent, while the Greens are at three per cent.
The research indicates that the Liberals have gained a five-point lead over the governing PCs since the last survey. The NDP’s support has decreased slightly, while the Greens remain low in public support.
Recent public opinion research indicates that the Liberal Party leads with 38 per cent support, compared to the governing PCs at 33 per cent, while the NDP and Greens stand at 21 per cent and 3 per cent, respectively. Political analysts suggest that these figures could shift the strategy of the PCs as they face increasing pressure to respond effectively ahead of the next election.
What remains unclear — It is not specified how recent this public opinion research is.
Doug Ford’s approval rating drops to 24% amid spending scandal
New public opinion research has the Liberals at 38 per cent, ahead of the governing PCs, who sit at 33 per cent. The NDP trail at 21 per cent, with the Greens at three per cent.
Government withdraws subpoenas for New York Times reporters in leak investigation
6:00 pm
Get you up to speed: Government withdraws subpoenas for New York Times reporters in Air Force One leak probe, after judge reprimands DOJ
The Justice Department announced it will withdraw subpoenas for grand jury testimony and phone records from New York Times reporters regarding security systems in the new Air Force One jet. U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian confirmed the subpoenas are now “null and void” following a court hearing where government attorneys acknowledged mistakes in the issuance.
The Justice Department admitted to procedural errors in its subpoena process, leading to the decision to withdraw the subpoenas, which had sought information from reporters and their family members. The ongoing investigation aims to address national security threats related to classified information leaks, although specific timelines for any future subpoenas remain unclear.
The Justice Department has withdrawn its subpoenas for grand jury testimony and phone records from New York Times reporters following a court hearing in which Judge Arun Subramanian expressed serious concerns over their issuance. In a statement, a Justice Department spokesperson confirmed the investigation into national security leaks will continue, emphasising the ongoing nature of the inquiry.
What remains unclear — It is not disclosed whether any further investigative steps will be taken by the Justice Department following the withdrawal of the subpoenas.
Government withdraws subpoenas for New York Times reporters in leak investigation
The Justice Department told a judge Thursday it will withdraw its subpoenas for grand jury testimony and phone records from New York Times reporters over an article on security systems in the new Air Force One jet. The judge later said it had happened.
During a heated court hearing, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian grilled federal prosecutors working for the Justice Department on why it had issued subpoenas before taking further investigative steps, and questioned whether he should issue sanctions over alleged perjury in an application to a judge to secure the subpoenas. Government attorneys acknowledged that they made mistakes when they sought the subpoenas.
In a brief order following the hearing, Subramanian reiterated that the “government has voluntarily withdrawn the challenged subpoenas,” which are now “null and void.”
A Justice Department spokesperson later told WTX US News that Subramanian “threatened our attorneys with sanctions unless subpoenas were withdrawn, and blocked us from presenting the meticulous process of this investigation,” arguing his conduct “overrides clear longstanding principles and common sense.”
“Make no mistake, this investigation remains ongoing, and we will pursue justice against those threatening national security by leaking classified information, a serious federal crime,” the spokesperson said.
New York Times deputy general counsel and senior vice president David McCraw said: “Today’s proceeding was an important affirmation of our country’s commitment to a free press. We are pleased that the government finally conceded that the subpoenas violated the law, but they should never have been issued in the first place. The Times and our journalists will continue to report and seek the truth without fear or favor. We will not be deterred in the face of tactics like these.”
The New York Times said earlier this month that several of its reporters received grand jury subpoenas soon after it published reporting on President Trump’s use of an old presidential aircraft to depart from the NATO summit in Turkey in early July and security limitations on a new plane donated by the Qatari government. The paper said the subpoenas were issued by Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York who was tapped by Mr. Trump for director of national intelligence.
The news outlet moved to block the subpoenas, calling them “abusive and improper.” The newspaper said in a court filing Saturday that prosecutors attempted to gain access to phone records of Times journalists and their family members as part of a Justice Department effort to identify sources who spoke to the reporters about security systems on the new Qatari-donated Air Force One plane.
In one batch of subpoenas, the Justice Department sought grand jury testimony from several reporters “in regard to an alleged violation of federal criminal law.” But subpoenas were also sent to third-party service providers for toll records and data for accounts associated with Times’ journalists. Among the information sought by the Trump administration were phone records for the spouses of two reporters and one journalist’s mother.
Two of the subpoenas sought phone records dating back to Jan. 1, well before the Times started reporting on the security concerns with the Qatari-donated airplane.
“That timeframe strongly suggests that the Department is using this investigation not to focus on any purported concerns arising from the July 8 and 9 articles, but instead to forage for information about the Journalists’ source relationships more broadly,” the Times’ lawyers said.
They added that the timing of the Justice Department’s actions is “deeply troubling” and “raise[s] pressing questions about the conduct of this purported national security investigation.”
Ahead of Thursday’s hearing, Subramanian halted enforcement of the subpoenas while he considered the Times’ request to quash the demands.
From the outset of the hearing, Subramanian made it clear that either the government could withdraw its subpoenas, or he would quash them.
The Justice Department initially asked the judge for a two-week suspension of the subpoenas while officials took further investigative steps. But Subramanian pressed the Justice Department on why it did not try to obtain the information it is seeking through other methods first, saying the agency’s “own regulations and policies indicate that subpoenas are the last step, not the first step.”
Sean Buckley, a lawyer with the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan, admitted in court that subpoenas for the reporters’ mother and spouses were an “error” and a “mistake,” saying their information was listed in a public database.
He said that the targets of the government’s investigation are the Times’ sources, not the reporters who were subpoenaed.
During a striking moment in court, Subramanian summoned the prosecutor who applied for a non-disclosure order for the subpoenas — Kevin Sullivan — from the gallery to the government’s table. The judge questioned Sullivan on whether the application falsely stated that the government’s investigation wasn’t public, when its existence had been publicly reported, and why Sullivan had not included that it was related to reporters or the New York Times.
“It was an oversight,” Sullivan said.
As he finished questioning Sullivan, Subramanian asked: “So, are you going to do this again?”
“No, your honor,” replied Sullivan.
The judge said in this type of situation, he would normally ask the party in question to show cause explaining why sanctions should not be imposed for perjury in a filing that was made to the court.
Buckley called the government’s omissions from the subpoena application an “inadvertent failure.” He assured the judge that disclosures would be appropriately addressed in the future, adding: “No one was looking to pull a fast one on the court or anybody else.”
At one point, Subramanian said the government’s “inadvertent errors” are “piling up.”
After a break to confer with the other side, Buckley said, “the government is prepared to withdraw the subpoenas at this time.” He said the government will return to the court if new subpoenas are needed.
Subramanian warned Buckley that, moving forward, he did not want to see the types of issues that have played out in this case.
“We’re not going to have a situation where someone is watching ‘The Sheep Detectives’ and the FBI shows up at your door?” he said.
“No,” replied Buckley.
Attorney David O’Neil then spoke on behalf of the Times. He admonished the government, saying the record is “replete with bad faith.”
“There are critical First Amendment issues at stake here,” he said. “Given the chills these subpoenas have already produced, it is damaging to journalists, their jobs and the public’s right to be informed about the conduct of the government.”
Local insights
Related Election News
© 2026 WTX News.