Justice Department subpoenas New York Times freelancer over North Korea reporting
SPEECH

Justice Department subpoenas New York Times freelancer over North Korea reporting

Aug 2, 2026Updated 7:11am ET

The Justice Department subpoenaed New York Times freelancer Matthew Cole in February as part of an investigation into the sourcing of a 2025 Times story.

The Justice Department subpoenaed New York Times freelancer Matthew Cole in February as part of an investigation into the sourcing of a 2025 Times story.

Corroboration

LowMedHigh
The New York TimesReutersThe GuardianAl JazeeraThe IndependentLos Angeles Times

Confirmed by 10+ sources.

What This is

  • The Justice Department subpoenaed New York Times freelancer Matthew Cole in February as part of an investigation into the sourcing of a 2025 Times story.
  • The 2025 story described a botched 2019 U.S. military mission in North Korea, described in some accounts as secret or top-secret.
  • Prosecutors are seeking more than two years of Cole’s notes and want him to testify, and one report says they also want information about contacts and sources.
  • One account says FBI agents delivered the subpoena to Cole’s home in New York.
  • The Times disclosed the subpoena and said it would cover Cole’s legal representation or legal fees.
  • The Times said the demand attacks journalism and threatens the ability to protect confidential sources.
  • The Justice Department said it will use legal tools to pursue unlawful disclosures of national defense information.
  • Another recent leak probe involving the Times ended with the government withdrawing subpoenas for other Times reporters after a judge criticized DOJ practices.

Why This Matters

  • If reporters can be forced to hand over notes or testify, sources may stop sharing information, especially about national security mistakes.
  • Leak investigations can protect real secrets, but they can also make journalists feel they risk prosecution for routine newsgathering.
  • How the Justice Department uses subpoenas against the press helps define the practical limits of First Amendment protections.
  • The case adds pressure to set clearer rules for when the government can demand a reporter’s contacts, records, or source identities.

Who else would want to know this?