The Trump administration issued grand-jury subpoenas to four New York Times journalists over reporting on security concerns with the president's new Air Force One, dismissed the Democratic FEC chair and all remaining members of the Election Assistance Commission, appointed a climate skeptic to lead the US Global Change Research Program, and narrowed the Endangered Species Act's definition of harm [1][13][14][16][10].
Federal agents delivered subpoenas to the journalists' homes, demanding testimony before a Manhattan grand jury after the Times reported that Trump switched planes during a NATO summit trip because the new Qatari-gifted aircraft lacked advanced anti-missile capabilities [1][4][7]. US Attorney Jay Clayton authorized the subpoenas [3]. The Justice Department stated that the reporters are not targets and that the investigation concerns those who leaked classified national-security information [2][5][6][21]. Before publication, senior FBI officials contacted the newspaper asking it to suppress the story on national-security grounds, which the newspaper declined [4][7]. FBI Director Kash Patel met with Justice Department officials at the White House before the subpoenas were issued [5]. The administration has previously taken legal action against media outlets, including subpoenas to Wall Street Journal and Washington Post reporters that were later withdrawn, and an FBI raid on Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson's home [4][5][20]. Trump attacked NYT journalist Maggie Haberman on social media, calling her "Maggot Hagerman" and threatening a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against the Times [11].
Press-freedom organizations condemned the subpoenas. Jodie Ginsberg, CEO of the Committee to Protect Journalists, described them as "an extraordinary escalation in President Trump's efforts to threaten and intimidate independent news organizations" with a chilling effect on journalists nationwide [1]. Bruce D. Brown of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press said Trump's "war on the press is looking for another victim" and that the subpoenas break from longstanding Justice Department practice of seeking information from reporters only as a last resort [5][20]. Stephen J Adler, chairman of the Reporters Committee, said that when "the public's right to know is crushed, as the Trump Administration is trying to do with its subpoenas against The New York Times, all of us suffer irreparable harm" [3]. Adam Steinbaugh of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression said that "hauling reporters before grand juries sends a chilling message to journalists and whistleblowers alike" [5]. Seth Stern of the Freedom of the Press Foundation said that "when the government claims it needs to investigate journalists to protect national security, it really means its own reputational security" [6]. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the subpoena "a gross overreach and a disgusting misuse of federal law enforcement resources" [1]. The National Press Club urged immediate withdrawal [3][6]. Legal analysis published on Substack connected the subpoenas to a broader pattern of administration actions including the Qatari jet gift and other legal matters [18]. Australian public broadcaster ABC News reported the story with a focus on press-freedom implications [19].
Trump and the White House denied that the new Air Force One had security shortcomings. Trump said he used the older plane "for old time's sake" and that the new plane stopped at a British base so service members could tour it [3]. He stated that "the life of a president is very dangerous" and that he is "No. 1 on their list" — referring to Iran [1][2][6][8]. White House spokesperson Steven Cheung said the new plane "has been fitted with high-level security protocols" and that the administration uses "every tool at our disposal — including distraction and misdirection — to address those threats" [6][8][21].
Security professionals assessed the aircraft differently. The Secret Service recommended that Trump leave the NATO summit in Turkey on the older plane because the new one lacked advanced security measures against possible missile attacks [7][8][11]. Former US Air Force officials believe the new Boeing 747 should not leave national territory or travel to sensitive zones [9]. Security services ruled out the new aircraft after the NATO summit due to Turkey's proximity to Iran [9]. The plane is a modified Boeing 747 gifted by Qatar, valued at $400 million, serving as a transitional aircraft while two fully equipped replacements are delayed until at least 2028 [2][6][9].
Trump appointed Matthew Wielicki, a geochemist without formal climate science training, to lead the USGCRP, which produces the National Climate Assessment [10][12][22]. Wielicki left academia stating the climate emergency narrative is false, produces content for PragerU, and attributes global warming to increased solar radiation rather than CO2 [12]. He has stated that those who believe in global warming are "bị lừa" (being deceived) [10]. The White House defended the appointment, with a White House spokesperson stating the USGCRP had been used "como vehículo para agendas políticas en lugar de ciencia sólida" (as a vehicle for political agendas instead of solid science) [10][12]. Climate scientist Judith Curry argued that previous national climate reports are "gần như vô dụng" (nearly useless) because they rely too heavily on extreme emission scenarios [10].
Former USGCRP executive director Michael Kuperberg warned that the report being compiled will not represent the entire scientific field and that "Nguy cơ thực sự là việc mất tính liêm chính của chính phủ liên bang" (the real risk is the loss of integrity of the federal government) [10]. Carlos Martinez of the Union of Concerned Scientists said placing the assessment "bajo la tutela de alguien completamente no calificado y negacionista del cambio climático" (under the tutelage of someone completely unqualified and a climate change denier) would endanger one of the country's most important climate science resources [12][23]. Brandon Jones, president of the American Geophysical Union, stated it is the scientific community's responsibility to ensure communities are "protegidos y preparados ante los crecientes riesgos del cambio climático" (protected and prepared for the growing risks of climate change) [12]. David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council called it "transparently putting a fox in charge of the hen house" [22]. Climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe stated Wielicki is unqualified and regularly attacks climate scientists [22]. Ryan Katz-Rosene of the University of Ottawa compared the appointment to "putting a Flat Earther in charge of NASA" [23].
The administration dismissed Democratic FEC Chair Ellen Weintraub and all remaining members of the Election Assistance Commission [13][14][24]. Weintraub stated that "there's a legal way to replace FEC commissioners — this isn't it" [13]. Trevor Potter, president of the Campaign Legal Center and former Republican FEC chair, argued that "as the only agency that regulates the president, Congress intentionally did not grant the president the power to fire FEC commissioners" [13]. Senator Mark Warner said removing every remaining commissioner months before the 2026 midterms "raises profound concerns about political interference" [25]. Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes called the firings "irresponsible and dangerous" [24][26]. Michael Waldman of the Brennan Center for Justice said the removals are "profundamente preocupantes" (deeply concerning) in light of Trump's efforts to interfere in elections [26]. Schumer called the firings "a brazen attempt to seize control of our elections before a single vote is cast" [24]. Election-law professor Rick Hasen of UCLA stated that "it's an open question about the EAC and the [Federal Election Commission]" whether the Supreme Court's new removal-power doctrine applies to bipartisan election agencies [14]. Legal analysts Bob Bauer and Jack Goldsmith argued that the Slaughter decision will lead to the collapse of bipartisan civil enforcement of campaign finance laws [15].
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum announced a rule narrowing the Endangered Species Act's definition of harm, stating that "for years, federal agencies abused the ESA to obstruct lawful land use and burden American families and businesses" [16][17][27]. Burgum said the action "restores common sense, respects private property, provides much-needed certainty for landowners and follows the statute Congress actually passed" [17]. Aaron Weiss of the Center for Western Priorities called it "one of the most horrific attempts to harm wildlife in American history and a gift to the oil barons and foreign mining companies" [16]. Ben Greuel of the Sierra Club said that "for more than four decades, the definition of 'harm' recognized a simple truth: if you destroy the places wildlife need to survive, you are putting species on a path to extinction" [17]. Kristen Boyles of Earthjustice stated that "no hay respaldo para la norma del Gobierno de Trump: no hay respaldo científico, no hay respaldo legal, no hay respaldo público" (there is no backing for the Trump administration's rule: no scientific backing, no legal backing, no public backing) [27].
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press called on the Senate Intelligence Committee to hold Clayton accountable at his confirmation hearing for Director of National Intelligence [3]. The subpoenas remain in effect, the FEC and EAC operate without their full complement of commissioners, and Earthjustice has indicated it will challenge the ESA rule change in court [27].