What a DOJ Subpoena Is and How It Works

A subpoena is a formal legal order requiring a person or organization to provide testimony or produce evidence for an investigation or legal proceeding, under penalty of law if they fail to comply. There are typically two main types of subpoenas: subpoena ad testificandum, which compels someone to testify, and subpoena duces tecum, which requires the production of documents, records, or other evidence. While the term “subpoena” is widely used in both civil and criminal law, when the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issues one it usually means the government is actively investigating potential wrongdoing and needs specific information to move forward with charges or to understand the facts of a case. Subpoenas can be issued as part of grand jury proceedings, regular judicial investigations, or as administrative demands—each with different legal mechanisms and implications. At its core, a subpoena is a powerful investigative tool that reflects the government’s authority to compel evidence as part of enforcing federal laws and seeking accountability.

Recent High‑Profile DOJ Subpoenas in 2026

In January 2026, several impactful DOJ subpoena actions made headlines, illustrating how this legal instrument is being used in contemporary political and policy disputes. One major development involved subpoenas served to Minnesota’s top officials—Governor Tim Walz, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, and St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her—as part of a federal investigation into alleged obstruction of federal immigration enforcement. The subpoenas demanded documentation and communications allegedly tied to efforts that may have interfered with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations, and they come amid protests and ongoing tension over immigration policy in the region. Local leaders strongly criticized the subpoenas as politically motivated, framing them as a tactic to intimidate critics of federal immigration actions rather than legitimate law enforcement inquiries.

Another striking example involved the U.S. Department of Justice serving grand jury subpoenas to the Federal Reserve concerning testimony by Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell about renovation projects at the central bank’s buildings DOJ subpoenas. According to Powell, the DOJ threatened a criminal indictment related to that testimony, which he described as a pretextual escalation beyond typical oversight. This move is highly unusual given the independence traditionally afforded to the Federal Reserve and highlights how subpoenas can surface in politically sensitive contexts, potentially affecting institutions not commonly associated with DOJ probes.

Legal Battles Over Health Care Records and Privacy

DOJ subpoenas have also drawn controversy in health care settings, particularly regarding gender‑affirming care for minors. In 2025, the department issued administrative subpoenas to hospitals and health care providers to obtain extensive records related to gender‑affirming treatments, including billing and company data. These actions were part of wider enforcement initiatives under the Trump administration aimed at scrutinizing medical practices tied to federal policy directives. Legal challenges quickly followed: federal courts in several cases blocked or quashed subpoenas on the grounds that they were overbroad, lacked proper investigative purpose, or risked infringing on protected patient information without clear legal justification. Such judicial pushback demonstrates that subpoenas, while powerful, are not immune from constitutional and statutory limitations, especially when they intersect with sensitive personal data or contentious political issues.

Broader Use and Challenges of DOJ Subpoenas

The DOJ’s use of subpoenas extends far beyond high‑profile political cases, encompassing civil fraud investigations, antitrust inquiries, and national security probes. For example, past subpoenas have been used to compel evidence in antitrust investigations against major corporations, seeking internal communications and documents that could support criminal or civil charges. They are also tools in national security contexts, such as national security letters (a type of administrative subpoena) that request records under specific laws without prior court approval. Because subpoenas compel compliance under penalty of law, recipients must take them seriously—either by complying or by seeking legal avenues to challenge or narrow the scope of the demand. Still, disputes over subpoenas often end up in court, where judges must balance the government’s need for information against privacy rights and statutory limits.

Implications for Accountability and Public Perception

DOJ subpoenas are essential tools for law enforcement and regulatory oversight, enabling investigators to gather evidence that might be otherwise inaccessible. However, their increasing use in politically charged environments—whether in immigration disputes, executive branch oversight, or health care policy—raises important questions about the rule of law, the independence of federal investigations, and public trust. When subpoenas touch on highly sensitive topics or involve prominent figures and institutions, the legal process can become entangled with political narratives, potentially affecting perceptions of fairness and impartiality. This dynamic underscores the crucial role of judicial review, transparency, and legal safeguards in ensuring that subpoenas serve legitimate investigative purposes without encroaching on civil liberties or becoming tools of political leverage.