The United States Department of Justice recently withdrew grand jury subpoenas issued to reporters from The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal after the news organizations initiated legal challenges.

美國司法部在新聞機構採取法律挑戰後，最近撤回了先前發給《華盛頓郵報》和《華爾街日報》記者的超級陪審團傳票。

The Department of Justice (DOJ) sought to compel testimony from journalists specializing in national security, including Ellen Nakashima of The Washington Post and three unidentified reporters from The Wall Street Journal. These subpoenas were issued under the auspices of national security investigations, with specific references made to reporting on the conflict involving Iran. The legal proceedings took place within the Eastern District of Virginia under seal, and the DOJ subsequently rescinded the demands without providing a formal explanation. No journalists testified before the grand jury.

司法部 (DOJ) 試圖強迫專精於國家安全的記者提供證詞，包括《華盛頓郵報》的 Ellen Nakashima 以及三名未具名的《華爾街日報》記者。這些傳票是在國家安全調查的名義下發出的，並特別提及關於伊朗衝突的報導。法律程序在維吉尼亞州東區法院封存進行，隨後司法部在未提供正式解釋的情況下撤回了要求。沒有記者在超級陪審團面前作證。

Institutional responses from the affected media entities characterized the DOJ's actions as an infringement upon First Amendment protections. A spokesperson for The Washington Post described the subpoenas as an attempt to transform journalists into investigative instruments of the state. Similarly, Dow Jones, the parent company of The Wall Street Journal, categorized the effort as an attack on constitutionally protected newsgathering. These events occur within a broader context of executive branch pressure on the press, which has included the execution of search warrants on journalists' residences, the restriction of access to Pentagon workspaces, and the initiation of various lawsuits against media publishers.

受影響媒體實體的機構回應將司法部的行為定格為對第一修正案保障的侵害。《華盛頓郵報》的一位發言人將這些傳票描述為企圖將記者轉化為國家的調查工具。同樣地，《華爾街日報》的母公司道瓊斯將此舉定義為對憲法保障的新聞採集行為的攻擊。這些事件發生在行政部門向新聞界施壓的更廣泛背景下，其中包括對記者住所執行搜索令、限制進入五角大廈工作空間，以及對媒體出版商發起各種訴訟。

External analysis from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press suggests that the pursuit of grand jury testimony represents a more significant intrusion into the journalistic process than requests for documentation. Such measures are interpreted as an escalation of administrative efforts to target reporting critical of the current executive leadership.

新聞自由記者委員會的外部分析指出，追求超級陪審團證詞比起要求提供文件，代表對新聞過程更嚴重的干預。此類措施被解釋為行政部門企圖針對批評現任行政領導層之報導而採取的升級行動。

The DOJ has reversed its attempt to compel journalist testimony, though the specific nature of the underlying national security investigations remains undisclosed.

司法部已撤回強迫記者提供證詞的嘗試，儘管底層國家安全調查的具體性質仍未披露。