White House subpoenas NYT journalists over Air Force One reporting

0:00This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. How has America shaped the world? I'm Asma Khaled, host of the Global Story podcast from the BBC. As the United States marks its 250-year anniversary, we've been exploring the surprising and often hidden ways the U.S. has shaped the modern world. And today on the show, we answer your questions about this moment and what to expect in the years to come. From the BBC, it's the United States at 250. Listen to The Global Story on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts.

0:42Hello and welcome to NewsHour live from the BBC World Service in London. I'm Rebecca Kesby. Why has the Trump administration ordered several journalists from The New York Times to give testimony under oath over their coverage of the new Air Force One? Four journalists from the paper have been subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury in Manhattan on Wednesday next week. It's a process that will decide if there's enough evidence to charge a person with a crime. So far, there are few details as to what the main objections are to the New York Times reporting. But in a statement to the BBC, the Justice Department said it's investigating illegal leaks of national security information.

1:24Well, last week, the New York Times wrote articles about the new Air Force One plane, gifted to President Trump personally by the Qatari government last year. Mr Trump used it to arrive at the NATO summit in Turkey just this week, but boarded the old Air Force One home. And that raised questions as to why. Well, the Times quoted people it said were briefed on the new plane's capabilities, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The Times reported that they suggested the new plane doesn't have all the features of the old plane and that it lacks defensive countermeasures of the previous model. We obviously asked the New York Times for an interview today.

2:05They sent us this statement. The appearance of federal law enforcement agents on the doorstep of news reporters should shock the conscience of any American who believes in the Constitution and the press freedom it protects. Our journalists report the facts and advance the American public's right to know how their government is operating and their taxpayer dollars are being used. This brazen act should be seen as nothing more than an attempt to prevent the public from knowing what is happening in their country by intimidating journalists from doing their jobs. Well, let's get some more details with Daniel Lippman.

2:43He's a White House and Washington reporter with Politico in the US Capitol. Daniel, thanks for joining us. First of all, the president has made absolutely no secret that he's very impressed with this new plane supplied by Qatar. He likes to point out how modern it is and its luxurious fittings and so on. Some did question the wisdom of accepting a plane from a foreign state. In the first place, though, and also the security upgrade will have been very expensive, surely. Yeah, this was going to be a year-long plus process because there are various things you have to retrofit with this plane in terms of anti-missile technology, other features to prevent against electromagnetic pulse attack in case of a nuclear strike on this plane.

3:35And so it raised a lot of eyebrows when he flew back from the NATO summit in Turkey with the old plane, especially after Iran and the U.S. resumed hostilities. And so I think that this is an embarrassing incident for Trump. And that's why the Justice Department is taking this as seriously to try to find out the Times' sources. And can you expand a little bit more on The Times reporting? Because they do go into some detail as to what they think might be lacking on this plane. Yeah, so it's that missile capability likely. We don't know all the details yet. And they're keeping that close to the vest.

4:17An FBI senior official told The Times before their publication to urge them not to do this article. But we've seen that in cases before where there's security-related stories that major publications want to do. And the government wants to not have that in the public eye. But it is pretty chilling because you don't want to have sources fear that they're going to be sent to jail because of what they told the Times. And even President Trump alluded to how it was almost like a little bit of a risky flight because it's right next to Turkey, it's right next to Iran. And every passenger on that plane had to pull up their window shades because of security precautions.

5:09And so there's a reason why a lot of people were suspicious of Qatar giving this plane to the U.S. in the first place. Well, that's right. Mr. Trump has been talking about his own security this week, hasn't he? As you mentioned, those comments about the plane. But I mean, he's got reason to be fearful because only today we had more threats coming from the Iranian regime. Yeah, and especially not saying that Qatar did anything to this plane. It seemed like, you know, this is why we have experts to look at it. But there is a lot of concern among the security community in this country that we shouldn't take a plane from a country like Qatar, which historically had pretty strong links to Iran.

5:54And so I think that there was the whole corruption angle as well. where they've set the new standard where if you want to give Trump a gift, a$400 million plane is probably at the high end. I think Switzerland was giving some Rolex watches, and that's nice, but not as big of a plane that Trump is actually going to keep after office. He's going to have the U.S. military donated to the Trump Presidential Library, and it'll be on display in Miami, But there's nothing to say that Trump can't use the plane after his time in office. And briefly, Daniel, it seems as if The Times has been quoting those unnamed security experts.

6:40I suppose the assumption is that the grand jury will be, you know, trying to get those sources from the journalists. What are the chances that the journalists will give them up? Very low chance that The Times is going to fight these subpoenas in court. and I tell sources sometimes that I'd be willing to go to jail to protect them as a source, and those Times reporters will likely have to make that same argument. I don't think they're going to go to jail, but it definitely becomes a high-stakes legal fight. Good to speak to you, Daniel. Thank you so much for joining us live there from Washington, D.C.

7:17Daniel Lippman with Politico in the U.S. Capitol there. Well, there's been a very vigorous reaction from defenders of the press today. Mark Sheff Jr. is the president of the National Press Club. They're going after reporters to reveal their sources, and that is an absolute violation of the First Amendment rights here in the United States, a violation of press freedom. This is a matter of the administration wanting to find out who the leakers are by pressuring journalists, by intimidating journalists. That's what's wrong here. And this is about journalists' relationship with their sources, and that can't be violated by the government.

8:04Well, George Freeman is executive director of the Media Law Resource Centre. He's also a former assistant general counsel and newsroom lawyer for The New York Times. That was for decades. So he's been at the forefront of high-profile cases at the paper. He joins us live now from the Hamptons on Long Island in New York. George, welcome to the programme. What's your reading of this tonight? Well, I think that given all the ethical questions about accepting such an unprecedented gift from a foreign government, this is certainly a matter of extreme and clear public interest. And, you know, it's, I think, embarrassed, this whole security question has embarrassed the president and put him on the defensive.

8:53but his playbook is never to retreat and always to fight aggressively. The problem is that that might be his playbook, but it's not a play which is allowed by our Constitution and by the First Amendment.

9:09Basically, questioning a reporter ought to be the last thing that the Department of Justice is allowed to do. And by longstanding tradition, it is the last step in an investigation, but it hardly can be the way a purported investigation should begin. And that's what seems to be happening here. And that's what's so strongly wrong about the steps the government has taken. I mean, I suppose the journalists will make the point that it's actually their job to expose any potential security threats to the president. You know, it's in the national interest to keep him safe for obvious reasons. But the paper was critical that the retrofit may have been rushed in some of its articles this week.

9:56I mean, I think that's neither here nor there. The question is, I don't think the government is claiming or will claim that the reporters committed a crime, disobeyed the Espionage Act. The government presumably wants to just question them as to who their confidential sources are, because the government is going to claim, I would think, that those people disobeyed the law and committed a crime. Now, whether they committed a crime, whether there's really national security involved in this, I don't think we know enough, or I don't know enough to decide that yet. But I can tell you that the law is fairly clear, and the Department of Justice had long has guidelines that says that you should start with everything the government can legally and easily get their hands on, not start with questioning a reporter about who their confidential sources is, which ought to be protected in the first place.

10:47So, I mean, if the journalists do, where do they stand legally if they do protect their sources? Could they go to jail? Well, they could. I represented a reporter who did go to jail, unfortunately. But basically, the law is that it's not an absolute privilege, but it's a very strong privilege. And the government has to prove that they can't get the information any other way, that it's something that's really important. And I'm not sure, you know, the Times apparently asked the Justice Department, what's the national security interest? Why should we not print this? Because the government demanded that the Times not print.

11:31And they didn't answer that question. So it's not going to be that easy for the government to say this really was a severe national security question and we had no other place to go other than the reporters. And that would be the showing they would have to make before it even would be possible to start talking about holding the reporters in contempt. Mr. Trump does have a bit of a habit of taking on the press, doesn't he? He's currently suing or threatening to sue several broadcasters, including the BBC and newspapers as well. I think he's currently trying to sue the New York Times over their coverage of the 24 election as well.

12:11The president seems to have this habit and he's really losing most of these cases. One case against the Times was thrown out by the judge within three days on the judge's own motion without even the Times having to make a motion. So a lot of these cases are really weak, but I think it's part of his playbook again to attack whenever he can. And really, he's hoping not to win these cases. He's hoping to chill and censor the press from writing about him. He admitted that much once, that the reason he criticizes the press all the time is to get them to stop saying bad things about him or to get the public not to believe those bad things about him.

12:52And I think this is part of that general offensive that we've seen now for six years. And very briefly, George, we've got that grand jury on Wednesday. Is there any chance that might get cancelled for any reason? You'd think that there'd be negotiations in the meantime, and it might well be delayed, but cancelled is a strong word, and that's not this administration's usual modus operandi, I'm afraid. All right. Well, thank you very much for joining us. They're live from the Hamptons on Long Island. That's George Freeman, executive director of the Media Law Resource Centre and former lawyer for the New York Times.

13:37Coming up later on the programme, we can hear from a resident in southern Spain where the wildfires have killed at least 12 people and more than 20 are still missing. I think just the speed of the thing and the access has been difficult. And the fact that it started on an extremely hot day with extremely hot winds blowing just in every direction, swirling winds has actually made it worse. More on that to come. And the latest is that the Spanish authorities are saying they are getting a grip on those fires now, which is good news. One other headline. Iran's supreme leader has issued a statement calling for revenge for the killing of his father in a US-Israeli airstrike right at the beginning of the conflict between the United States and Iran.

14:36Next to Ukraine, where authorities in the north-eastern region of Sumy say five people have been killed and 30 wounded in Russian glide bomb attacks on the local capital. One of those killed was a 13-year-old girl as she was standing waiting for a bus. 12 people were also injured in the capital, Kiev, last night in Russian strikes. And there's been a dramatic increase in Russian attacks recently on the southeastern Ukrainian city of Zabarizhia. Drones and bombs have inflicted severe damage to infrastructure, but also hit residential housing, which has killed civilians. Our correspondent Vitaly Shevchenko has this report.

15:14Tuesday the 30th of June was a very busy and stressful day for Anna Holovchenko, an IT specialist in Zaporizhia. It started early, very early. I woke up at five in the morning because of explosions. Glide bombs were hitting the suburbs. I had a look at what was going on, cursed, and turned over to go back to sleep because it was so early. Then there was another wave. At about six, Shahed drones started flying overhead and they started to shoot them down. It got pretty loud. That's when I realised I'm not getting any more sleep and started to get ready for work. And things did not get easier for Anna from then on.

15:58The internet disappeared at work after a drone strike cut a cable. A Shahed crashed nearby with a massive bang. And then there were more bomb strikes. That's just another ordinary day in Zaporizhia, she told me. Over the past few weeks, security there has deteriorated sharply. Numerous buses, petrol stations, schools, government offices and residential houses have been hit by Russian drones and bombs. The local council has had to meet in an underground bunker. Zaporizhia's acting mayor, Regina Kharchenko, told me that the authorities are building more shelters, putting up anti-drone nets and applying anti-shatter film to windows in schools, hospitals and other public buildings.

16:48Personally, I'm very afraid. I was sitting here in my office last Monday, listening to all the explosions. My window was shaking. When it got too loud, I took cover in the toilet. That's how we live. I live in an ordinary high-rise on the seventh floor. I've got no personal bunker with 10 bodyguards in it with drone detectors. People are trying to stay in safe locations. If we know the night is going to be tough, we sleep on the floor in the corridor with no windows. Attacks on Zaporizhia intensified in early June, even though Ukrainian forces had pushed Russian troops a few kilometres away from the city.

17:31The Russians appear to have found better ways of getting their drones to Zaporizhia and avoiding Ukrainian jamming. Towards the end of my conversation with Anna, I ask her if she has ever considered leaving her city. The thought has occurred to me. It may sound strange, but I don't think the situation is critical yet. We've got food, fuel, everything. Why would I leave?

18:00Maybe I'm not easily scared. We're just trying to stay safe, and we're doing all we can to survive until our victory. Hundreds of thousands of local residents like Anna are staying put for now. They're hoping that Zaporizhia will not become yet another city like Bahmut or Avdievka, destroyed by Russia. Vitaly Shevchenko with that report.

18:29Now it is the final weekend of the Wimbledon Tennis Championships. Today the women's final was drama at its finest. The 21-year-old Linda Neskova won her first Wimbledon title against her compatriot Karolina Mukova in a tense match. It was an all-Czech final and they come in a long line of illustrious Czech tennis players who've won major championships. Of course, Martina Navratilova, chief among them, winning a record nine Wimbledon singles titles. The last time two Czech-born women contested the final was back in 1986. Navratilova beat Hanna Mandlikova, who told us why Czech women are so good at tennis.

19:14I know it's crazy. I mean, it was funny when John McEnroe asked, is it in the beer or something? But no, I just always believe that it starts with the coaching. Even in the smaller clubs all over Czech Republic, there's always a coach who knows the technique very well and can teach it to the kids. Well, I'm delighted to say we've got another tennis legend on the line to speak to us now. She's in the International Tennis Hall of Fame. It's Pam Shriver, who among her other titles won the Wimbledon Women's Doubles Championship five times with Martina Navratilova. Pam, delighted to have you on the programme.

19:57Thanks for having me on. And it was just an outstanding women's final. And you're right. I mean, players from Czech Republic, Czechia, they're just unbelievable how comfortable they are on a grass court. Well, it was such a match, wasn't it? Going right down to the wire, three sets in the end. Karolina Mukhova came back several times, but Nuskova just got it in the end. And there's quite a lot of chat afterwards because the two know them, know each other very well, obviously, being from the same country. Yeah, they played the Olympic Games together two years ago in Paris. They're quite a few years apart in age, about eight.

20:33So they didn't grow up in the juniors together in their homeland. But obviously, yes, you do get to know people from your home country. Interestingly enough, Mukova had not lost from someone from her home country in over six years. So Naskova did something that hadn't been done for a while. But you're right, it was a compelling final with Naskova up a set in 5-2. Looked like it was going to be over. She had a handful of championship points, could not win it in straight sets. And then she did an unbelievable job, Naskova, after losing the second set, resetting. She left center court for two or three minutes and then came out and played a brilliant final set with the help of, I think, the best right-handed serve we'd seen on a grass court maybe since Rybakana won it back in 2021.

21:18And Pam, they do say that tennis is often a psychological battle. I mean, the drama can be really intense, especially on centre court at Wimbledon. Yes, it's controlling the emotions. It's fascinating for me. It's my first year that I've sort of switched my careers within the pro tennis to being a mindset performance coach. So I I watch matches through the lens of the mindset, and there's no bigger match than the finals of Wimbledon. And obviously there was a lot at play today for both players on the mental side, and both actually handled it pretty well, had a lot of resilience. And, you know, I think we saw the emotions spill out afterwards.

21:59It was really one of the most memorable ceremonies, even since Jana Novotna cried on the shoulders of the Duchess of Kent, you know, almost over 30 years ago. Yeah. And of course, the Princess of Wales was there today to do the honours with tennis royalty, your friend Martina Navratilova, also from Czechia, as we mentioned. I mean, is her legacy still having an impact on the country, do you think? I think so, because she had a huge impact on the coaching system, as Manlakova said on your show right before I jumped on. How has America shaped the world? I'm Asma Khalid, host of the Global Story podcast from the BBC.

22:39As the United States marks its 250-year anniversary, we've been exploring the surprising and often hidden ways the U.S. has shaped the modern world. And today on the show, we answer your questions about this moment and what to expect in the years to come. From the BBC, it's the United States at 250. Listen to the global story on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts.

23:06and you know i think navratilova's nine wimbledon titles that she started her first in 1978 48 years ago over chris everett and almost won a tenth when she lost to conchita martinez who was coaching a player who just won rolling garros so it shows you that the legacy and the generations are all connected especially if you're from one country and even though martinez switched uh to u.s um And because she defected, I think she's most impactful in her homeland. Lovely to speak to you, Pam Shriver. Thank you so much for joining us live with your analysis of that excellent match today. The men are up tomorrow, of course.

23:42That will be covered in detail on the BBC Sports pages, I can assure you of that. And no doubt they'll be making room for it on this programme tomorrow as well. Pam Shriver, thank you so much for joining us live.

24:08Welcome back to NewsHour. The US government has issued the first ever compensation payments to personnel affected by the so-called Havana syndrome, the mysterious ailment reported by American diplomats while working in the embassy in the Cuban capital. The US Department of Defense says it's given out nearly$3 million in compensation, Let's find out more about Havana syndrome. Dr Thomas Withington is an analyst with the defence think tank, the Royal United Services Institute. He specialises in electronic warfare, radar and military communications. In terms of the symptoms, there's a number that seem to be fairly common.

24:49Dizziness, nausea. In some cases, we've heard of things like nosebleeds, for instance. Acute, I think it would be fair to say acute physiological discomfort. is certainly the overriding one that most of the sufferers appear to have reported. And that appears to be how this syndrome sort of manifests itself, is these kind of very unpleasant physiological sensations, such as, as I said, headache, nausea, that kind of thing. It's all sort of shrouded in mystery, isn't it? I mean, are these weapons legal? Because there have been reports that some sort of sound weapon may have been used when President Maduro was captured in Venezuela earlier this year?

25:34It's a very good question. I think what complicates this is that we know so little about the kind of weapons that are being used, assuming they are being used, of course. You mentioned the capture of Nicolas Maduro. We had these reports of a sonic weapon being used to aid that effort. Now, sonic weapons themselves are not new. Personally speaking, I've actually been in demonstrations where they've been used. And I can tell you they're particularly unpleasant. But my own very small and limited experience of that was not really, you know, I didn't feel any sort of nausea or I didn't have any kind of pronounced physiological symptoms.

26:09I just didn't want to be in the area where this thing was being activated. But of course, what we know in terms of what's happening in the public domain, compared to what is happening in the military domain and classified space, obviously, that's a lot more mysterious. And by its very nature, it's much more difficult to get information about that. Yeah, now we call it Havana syndrome, but I mean, there's never really been proved exactly what happened to cause it, has it? Again, an excellent question. And you know, something I always think about is whenever something new comes out about Havana syndrome, such as the news we've had today concerning the compensation or reports we've had in the past, every time we get one of these reports, we get a vignette of information.

26:51In many ways, we just end up with even more questions that we need to ask. So we're getting more information that's coming out, but often that is just sort of getting us deeper into the mysterious elements of this. Well, what's actually causing it? How could it be caused? Why do some people get symptoms, but other people don't? And it's really, really difficult to try and clear up those questions with any sort of definitive answers. That's Dr. Thomas Withington there, defence analyst at the Royal United Services Institute here in London.