Justice Department eases rules on subpoenas or search warrants targeting journalists

Attorney General Pam Bondi has issued revised guidance to all Department of Justice employees, loosening long-standing restrictions on the use of subpoenas, court orders, and search warrants to obtain information from members of the news media.

The updated policy, formally titled “Updated Policy Regarding Obtaining Information From, or Records of, Members of the News Media,” rescinds reforms enacted under former Attorney General Merrick Garland and reverts largely to pre-2022 standards.

The changes, published in the Federal Register on May 1, eliminate a key protection established by Garland in 2021—a bright-line rule barring DOJ from compelling testimony or records from journalists engaged in newsgathering, except in narrowly defined circumstances.

Instead, the department will now apply a case-by-case balancing test, weighing law enforcement interests against press freedom concerns.

While the revised regulations retain certain safeguards—such as requiring attorney general approval for most subpoenas targeting journalists and mandating advance notice in many cases—they grant federal prosecutors greater latitude to pursue leak investigations.

The policy shift comes amid heightened rhetoric from the administration condemning unauthorized disclosures of government information, whether classified or not.

In her memorandum, Bondi framed the changes as necessary to combat leaks that “undermine the rule of law, protect civil rights, and keep America safe.”

She specifically cited a recent presidential memorandum describing some leaks as “treasonous,” though legal experts note that actual prosecutions for treason are exceedingly rare and require proof of intent to betray the United States.

The revised guidelines also remove a provision preventing the DOJ from invoking an exception to the Privacy Protection Act—a law shielding journalists from most search warrants—unless prosecutors intend in good faith to charge the journalist with a crime.

This raises concerns that the department could again seek warrants under legal theories similar to those used in 2010, when the FBI obtained a warrant for a reporter’s emails by alleging he had conspired with a source to disclose classified information, despite having no intention to prosecute him.

First Amendment advocates warn that the changes could chill investigative journalism, particularly in national security reporting. “Criminalizing routine newsgathering undermines the public’s right to know,” said a representative from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. “These revisions should prompt Congress to finally pass a federal shield law.”

The DOJ maintains that the policy still includes protections for journalists, including the presumption of advance notice before records are seized. Yet with the broader discretion now afforded to prosecutors, the balance between press freedom and government secrecy appears poised to shift—with uncertain consequences for the flow of information to the public.