The U.S. Justice Department has subpoenaed the records of a freelance journalist for the New York Times as part of an investigation into the sourcing of a 2025 article that examined a botched U.S. military operation in North Korea, the newspaper said.
According to the newspaper, freelancer Matthew Cole received the subpoena in February from prosecutors in Virginia. The request, the paper reported, seeks in excess of two years of Cole's notes and also demands his testimony in connection with the probe.
A New York Times spokesman, Charlie Stadtlander, said in an emailed statement that Cole is disclosing the subpoena. Stadtlander added that the newspaper supports Cole's decision to make the document public and framed the demand as part of what the statement described as growing government pressure on journalists.
"We support Matthew Cole's decision to make public a subpoena that the government has attempted to keep secret," Stadtlander said. "It is part of the government's escalating attacks on journalists, which should concern all Americans. ... The demand that he disclose his sources is another brazen and illegal attack from the administration designed to deny the public information of vital importance."
The article at the center of the inquiry, co-written by Cole, recounted how Navy SEALs in early 2019 reportedly killed several unarmed North Koreans during a mission intended to place a listening device near the country's coastline. That story cited roughly two dozen unnamed sources, the paper said.
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment, the newspaper reported. The paper is paying for Cole's legal representation, the article said, and noted that his attorney, David A. O'Neil, did not immediately reply to a request for comment.
Context and implications
While the newspaper published details of the subpoena and the underlying story, it also emphasized concerns about the legal pressure placed on journalists to disclose sources. The reporting and statements cited in the newspaper's account indicate a confrontation between prosecutorial authorities and the newsroom over confidential reporting practices and source protection.
Details beyond those provided by the newspaper were not included in its account. The scope of any ongoing investigation and any potential legal actions that could follow remain unclear based on the information the paper disclosed.