AILSA CHANG, HOST:
The New York Times is asking a federal court to throw out subpoenas that were issued to several of its reporters after they published stories about security vulnerabilities in President Trump's new Air Force One plane, which was a gift from Qatar. The subpoenas were issued because the Justice Department says that the leaks are a threat to national security. Investigators want the reporters to testify before a grand jury about their confidential sources. The Times says that these subpoenas were brought in, quote, "bad faith" and are an attempt to intimidate journalists and punish their reporting. Joe Kahn is the executive editor of The New York Times and joins us now. Welcome.
JOE KAHN: Good to be with you.
CHANG: Good to have you. So first, Joe, just take us back to last Friday night. Federal agents showed up at the homes of several of your reporters with these subpoenas. What exactly is the government demanding from them?
KAHN: The subpoenas themselves are a little bit vague but ask the reporters involved to provide information the government says is critical to their investigation of a leak of classified information.
CHANG: And did the government specify what information is critical?
KAHN: No, beyond saying that the reporters were potential witnesses to what they consider to be a criminal violation of handling of classified information.
CHANG: So these reporters have been asked, have been compelled to turn over information that has not been specified by the government.
KAHN: That's correct. And the subpoenas themselves are fairly vague and broad, and they are not preceded by a thorough investigation into the source or the nature of the leak. We've filed a motion to quash those subpoenas, and we're hopeful the court will take up that motion.
CHANG: If the government does succeed here, how do you think it could change the way journalists do their jobs or change the willingness of sources to come forward?
KAHN: I don't think there's any question that the issuance of subpoenas after a story is published so quickly - literally within 48 hours - completely undermines the notion that this was a proper investigation into what they claim is a leak of national security information. It's clearly an attempt to intimidate the journalists themselves from reporting on issues that the government or the president himself consider to be private or unfavorable to him. This doesn't follow anything like standard Justice Department procedures for looking into a leak, where you try to identify the source of the leak, and you interview people who had access to the information. Going directly to the journalists like this is a naked act of intimidation.
CHANG: Going directly to the journalists at the outset of a leak investigation is what's a little unconvential here is what you're saying?
KAHN: Absolutely. Unconventional is a modest word. It's a complete violation of even their own internal administrative procedures for looking into a leak investigation.
CHANG: But let's talk about the administration's argument here. I mean, they say that classified material was leaked and, in the interest of national security, the government has an obligation to find the leaker. So how do you, as a journalist, think about the choice between protecting national security and protecting confidential sources?
KAHN: The government has its own classification system for information and obviously needs to protect certain information that is critical to keep secret for national security reasons, but in a democracy with a free press, journalists pursue information which they determine is in the public interest. This case was a very clear-cut case, in my view, of a matter that was very clearly within the public interest - Air Force One or the jets used as Air Force One and the security systems that they're equipped with.
In this case, the new jet that President Trump has preferred to use - the donation from the Qataris - was not equipped with the same degree of defensive systems that the older jets which are used as Air Force One have on board. And that's a direct risk to the president himself, of course, but also the hundreds of other people - government officials, military officials, members of the Cabinet, members of Congress and journalists, by the way, who fly on those planes. That's a matter - an act of choice by the president that seems well within the public's right to know about the decisions that he's making. We're not part of the government. We hold the government to account.
CHANG: Explain the process for people going forward now. The New York Times filed this motion to quash the subpoenas. What happens next? In other words, what do you think the likelihood is that your reporters could still be forced to testify?
KAHN: We're going to have to trust in the legal process. We have an excellent legal team. They have filed a brief already that argues that these subpoenas should be quashed because they didn't follow the standard procedure for investigations of a leak. We have confidence the courts will agree with that opinion. We don't know the result of that yet. And meanwhile, continue to report diligently on the issues about Air Force One itself, as well as the government's use of these prosecutorial powers to put pressure on independent media.
CHANG: Joe Kahn is the executive editor of The New York Times. Thank you very much for joining us.
KAHN: Thanks for having me. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
