Justice Dept. Weighed Naming New York Times as Conspirator in Comey Leak Case
If the department proceeds, it would mark a significant shift in how the federal government uses conspiracy statutes against news organizations in leak investigations.
The U.S. Department of Justice considered naming The New York Times as a co-conspirator in a criminal leak case connected to former FBI Director James Comey, according to reporting by The New York Times published November 8, 2026. The department had not, as of the report's publication, finalized a decision on whether to proceed with that designation.
The Comey leak case centers on the disclosure of sensitive government information. The specific nature of the alleged leak, the underlying statutes being considered, and the precise legal theory connecting the Times to any conspiracy were not fully detailed in the available source material. The full criminal referral or investigative file, if one exists, would be the public record most likely to answer those questions.
Attorney General Todd Blanche, appearing on CNN's "State of the Union" on November 9, 2026, declined to directly answer questions about whether the Justice Department would open investigations into Democratic members of Congress, according to reporting by The Hill. Blanche was responding to questions about President Trump's public remarks directing the department to examine what Trump characterized as a "criminal act" by congressional Democrats who had called for the impeachment of certain cabinet officials.
Blanche did not confirm or deny that any such investigation was underway or being planned. Under Justice Department regulations, 28 C.F.R. Part 50, the department is generally prohibited from confirming or denying the existence of ongoing investigations. Whether any formal investigation has been opened is not established by the available source material.
The potential naming of a media organization as a co-conspirator in a leak case has a documented precedent in federal legal history. In 2013, the Obama administration's Justice Department named Fox News correspondent James Rosen as a co-conspirator in an affidavit supporting a search warrant in the Stephen Jin-Woo Kim leak case. That designation, reported at the time by The Washington Post, drew criticism from press freedom advocates and members of both parties. Rosen was not ultimately charged.
The legal mechanism of naming a reporter or outlet as a co-conspirator, rather than indicting them, has been used in past administrations to satisfy warrant requirements under the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 2000aa), which restricts searches of newsroom materials unless the journalist is suspected of a crime. The act of designation as a co-conspirator does not constitute a charge or conviction.
The First Amendment and the federal common law journalist's privilege, recognized in varying forms across federal circuits, would likely be central to any legal challenge if the Justice Department moved forward. The scope of that privilege in federal criminal proceedings remains unsettled following the Supreme Court's 1972 decision in Branzburg v. Hayes, which held that the First Amendment does not grant reporters a general privilege to refuse grand jury testimony.
The Trump administration has taken several documented steps affecting press access and media organizations since January 2025. These include executive orders on government communications and Federal Communications Commission proceedings involving broadcast license reviews, as recorded in the Federal Register and FCC public dockets. Whether the Justice Department's deliberations in the Comey leak case are connected to those broader policy directions is not established by the available source material.
What remains unknown includes: whether the Justice Department has formally designated the Times as a co-conspirator in any filed document; whether a grand jury has been convened or a subpoena issued; and whether any Justice Department official below the Attorney General level recommended the designation in writing. The documents that would answer those questions are grand jury materials, internal DOJ memoranda, and any filed court documents in the underlying case, none of which are publicly available as of this report's publication date of November 8, 2026.