New York Times reporter Judith Miller jailed for refusing to name a confidential source in the Valerie Plame affair
A federal judge jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller for contempt after she refused to tell a grand jury who told her the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame, part of a special counsel's investigation into the leak.1234
- Country
- United States (RSF 2026 rank: 64th of 180)
- Where
- United States
- Level of government
- National
- Tactics
- Surveillance and subpoenas, Secrets and espionage laws
- Stage
- Punish (see the ladder)
- Head of government at the time
- George W. Bush
- Issue of the day
- The Bush administration's case for the 2003 Iraq War and the public dispute over former ambassador Joseph Wilson's contrary account of Iraqi uranium claims.
- Outcome
- Upheld by a court, September 29, 2005. Courts upheld the contempt order and subpoena; Miller served 85 days before her source freed her to testify, and prosecutors later convicted Libby of perjury.
- Era
- The 2000s
What happened
In 2003, columnist Robert Novak published the name of Valerie Plame, an undercover Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer, after officials in President George W. Bush's administration discussed her identity with reporters after her husband publicly criticized the Iraq War. Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald investigated the leak and subpoenaed several reporters, including Judith Miller of The New York Times, to testify before a federal grand jury, a panel that decides whether to bring criminal charges. Miller had not published a story about Plame but had discussed her with a source, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and refused to identify him, citing a reporter's duty to protect sources. On July 6, 2005, federal judge Thomas F. Hogan found her in civil contempt and jailed her. She was released on September 29, 2005, after Libby released her from confidentiality and she agreed to testify. Libby was later convicted of perjury and obstruction.1234
What reason was given
Judge Hogan held that Miller's refusal to identify her source obstructed a federal grand jury investigation into a possible crime; Miller said, "If journalists cannot be trusted to keep confidences, then journalists cannot function and there cannot be a free press."1
What changed for reporting
Miller spent 85 days in jail for declining to reveal a source for a story she never wrote, a rare instance of a United States reporter jailed over source confidentiality, and other reporters subpoenaed in the same case negotiated releases from their sources instead.23
Timeline
2005
Who acted
| Name | Role in this incident | Office at the time |
|---|---|---|
| George W. Bush | other | President of the United States |
| I. Lewis Libby | other | Chief of Staff to the Vice President |
| Judith Miller | other | Reporter, The New York Times |
| Patrick Fitzgerald | ordered | Special Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice |
| Thomas F. Hogan | ordered | Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia |
Outlets and journalists
| Name | Kind | Relation |
|---|---|---|
| The New York Times | outlet | affected |
Sources
- Reporter Judith Miller Jailed for Refusing to Reveal Plame Case Source
- Prison for Judith Miller: a dark day for freedom of the press
Claims cited
- Miller said a reporter's ability to keep confidences was essential to a free press.
If journalists cannot be trusted to keep confidences, then journalists cannot function and there cannot be a free press.
Reporter Judith Miller Jailed for Refusing to Reveal Plame Case Source, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 2005-07-06. Claim 212, checked 2026-09-22. - Reporters Without Borders called Miller's jailing a serious setback for press freedom in the United States and internationally.
It is a dark day for freedom of the press in the United States and around the world.
Prison for Judith Miller: a dark day for freedom of the press, Reporters Without Borders (RSF), 2005-07-07. Claim 213, checked 2026-09-22. - RSF said jailing a reporter for exercising her professional rights was a dangerous precedent.
This unprecedented sentence against a journalist who was merely exercising her professional rights is a serious violation of international law, a dangerous precedent.
Prison for Judith Miller: a dark day for freedom of the press, Reporters Without Borders (RSF), 2005-07-07. Claim 214, checked 2026-09-22. - RSF said the United States had sent a damaging signal to the rest of the world by jailing Miller.
the United States has sent a very bad signal to the rest of the world.
Prison for Judith Miller: a dark day for freedom of the press, Reporters Without Borders (RSF), 2005-07-07. Claim 215, checked 2026-09-22.