After reporters with CNN and the New York Times, among other news organizations, published details of a “low confidence” intelligence assessment that suggested the U.S. bomb and missile strike on Iran wasn’t the “total obliteration” that President Donald Trump claimed, the administration appears to be contemplating using a DOJ policy change to compel journalists to reveal their sources amid a criminal leak probe.

Several days ago, Secretary Pete Hegseth said that the Department of Defense was working with the FBI on a leak probe to smoke out the source or sources who outed the top secret battle damage assessment, since “CNN and others are trying to spin [the strike assessment] to make the president look bad when this was an overwhelming success.”

Notably, Hegseth’s language here closely tracked the memorandum that U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi published in April, a policy update that both rescinded Biden-era AG Merrick Garland’s rules and stated that the current DOJ would “will not tolerate unauthorized disclosures that undermine President Trump’s policies, victimize government agencies, and cause harm to the American people.”

In the days that followed Hegseth’s remarks, Trump called out CNN reporter Natasha Bertrand by name and a private attorney for the president floated suing CNN and the New York Times for defamation, leading both news organizations to publicly stand by their reporting. But the real emerging legal threat appears to be on another front, one that Trump alluded to during an interview on Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures.

During that interview, anchor Maria Bartiromo asked the president about his Truth Social post calling for prosecutions of the “Democrats […] who leaked the information on the PERFECT FLIGHT to the Nuclear Sites in Iran.”

When Trump reiterated that “they should be prosecuted,” Bartiromo asked: “Who specifically?”

“The people that leaked it,” Trump answered. “You can find out. If they wanted, they could find out easily, you know.”

“You go up and tell the reporter, ‘national security, who gave it?'” he added. “You have to do that. And I suspect we’ll be doing things like that.”

Now, who is the “they” who could easily find out on national security grounds? This is where Bondi’s DOJ memo comes into play.

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox

In the opening lines of that memo, Bondi stated that federal employees “intentionally leaking sensitive information to the media undermines the ability of the Department of Justice to uphold the rule of law, protect civil rights, and keep America safe.”

“This conduct is illegal and wrong, and it must stop,” Bondi continued. “Therefore, I have concluded that it is necessary to rescind Merrick Garland’s policies precluding the Department of Justice from seeking records and compelling testimony from members of the news media in order to identify and punish the source of improper leaks.”

Ross Garber, a Tulane Law adjunct professor and attorney and who has represented both journalists and government officials in leak probes, told Law&Crime that the Trump administration’s aggressive stance and policy shift could mean that search warrants and grand jury subpoenas will follow — and maybe worse.

Noting that “there is no federal shield law to protect the confidentiality of journalists’ sources,” Garber said that Bondi’s removal of the Garland “guardrails” means that those who leaked the Iran strike early assessment to the media will “should expect” to be found out.

“The Trump/Bondi DOJ has made clear it will pursue leak investigations aggressively, without the guardrails of previous administrations. And they have powerful tools at their disposal, including grand jury subpoenas and search warrants,” Garber said. “The sources of the leaked information should expect to be discovered.”

But what of the CNN and New York Times journalists who reported on the assessment? For Garber, they “should expect to be ensnared in the investigations, including by having their phone records and electronic communication seized and being subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury.”

Could those journalists end up jailed by a judge if they don’t reveal their sources? Garber said that’s “entirely possible.”

“It is entirely possible a judge will order them detained unless they comply, notwithstanding any promises of confidentiality they made to their sources,” he said. “Journalists who obtain classified information are not without risk of prosecution themselves, particularly if they actively solicit the information or act outside what the Trump DOJ considers to be ‘lawful news-gathering activities.'”

Worse yet, if the journalists are alleged to have solicited the leaks of classified information, they could find themselves in the crosshairs of the Espionage Act, just like former Fox News reporter James Rosen and WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange.

“In at least one publicly disclosed case, the Obama administration obtained a search warrant for a Fox News reporter’s (James Rosen) emails, deeming him a co-conspirator in violating the Espionage Act because he allegedly solicited classified information and aided and abetted the leak,” Garber noted. “And Julian Assange was indicted under the Espionage Act for soliciting, receiving, and publishing national defense information.”

Trump himself was once ensnared in an Espionage Act prosecution, in the form of the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case, but a federal judge he appointed during his first term invalidated special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment last July. Several months later, after Trump was inaugurated as president for a second time, the DOJ promptly tossed the case.