Former Fox News journalist subpoenaed to reveal confidential source

Journalist Catherine Herridge appealed a civil contempt charge on March 13, 2024, for refusing to comply with a subpoena for testimony about a confidential source. Her appeal was denied on Sept. 30, 2025.

In early 2017, Herridge published a series of investigative articles and broadcast reports for Fox News about a federal investigation into the possible foreign military ties of a Chinese American scientist, Yanping Chen. The articles cited and included excerpts of materials from the investigation.

No charges were brought against Chen and, in December 2018, she sued the FBI and the departments of Justice, Defense and Homeland Security, arguing that investigators violated her rights under the Privacy Act when her personal information was leaked to Herridge.

In June 2022, Chen subpoenaed Herridge for documents, communications and testimony concerning the federal investigation, as well as sufficient information to identify her source. A U.S. district judge quashed the requests for documents but ruled in August 2023 that the identity of the confidential source was central to the lawsuit’s claim and ordered Herridge to testify about her reporting and any sources.

In September, Herridge sat for a deposition but refused to answer any questions about the identity or intent of her sources, according to court filings.

In February 2024, the court held Herridge in contempt and ordered that she be fined $800 a day until she complied with the subpoena, but stayed the fine until an appeal of the ruling was completed.

In March, Herridge appealed the order, arguing that the court should consider factors beyond the centrality of the source’s identity to Chen’s claim and whether Chen had exhausted other avenues of obtaining the information. The court should also take into account the importance of “the First Amendment interest in protecting confidential sources to promote the newsgathering process,” especially in national security reporting, attorneys representing Herridge wrote.

“The district court decision undermines First Amendment protections and would stifle the flow of information to the press,” the filing argued, “because investigative journalists cannot function without credible assurances of confidentiality to their sources.”

It also argued that, if the First Amendment journalist’s privilege did not apply, the court should recognize a federal common law reporter’s privilege instead, similar to state reporter’s privilege laws.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit disagreed. In the Sept. 30 ruling on behalf of a three-judge panel, U.S. Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas wrote that per case law, only centrality and exhaustion need be considered in Privacy Act cases, “without any broader balancing of private and public interests.”

Katsas also argued that state reporter’s privilege laws vary widely “on the question whether case-by-case interest balancing is appropriate.”

“If the First Amendment itself does not entitle Herridge to disobey discovery obligations imposed on every other citizen in the circumstances of this case, we see little reason to create that entitlement as a matter of judge-made common law,” Katsas wrote.

The same day, the court issued a second order giving Herridge seven days to ask for a rehearing.

Freedom of the Press Foundation, of which the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker is a project, condemned the ruling. “Catherine Herridge has bravely risked financial ruin to stick up for the rights of all reporters,” FPF Executive Director Trevor Timm wrote on social media. “This decision does real damage to bedrock principles of press freedom, and we urge the Court of Appeals to re-hear this case with a full panel of judges.”

Journalist Catherine Herridge was held in civil contempt on Feb. 29, 2024, for refusing to comply with a subpoena compelling her to reveal a confidential source, according to court documents reviewed by the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker.

Herridge was subpoenaed for documents and testimony in 2022 concerning a series of investigative online articles and broadcast reports she authored for Fox News in 2017 about a federal investigation into the possible foreign military ties of a Chinese American scientist, Yanping Chen.

Chen filed a lawsuit in 2018 against the departments of Justice, Defense and Homeland Security for violations of the Privacy Act, alleging that a government official had leaked materials from an investigation into Chen’s possible foreign military ties, excerpts of which were included in Herridge’s articles.

While U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper quashed the requests for documents, he ruled in August 2023 that the identity of the confidential source was central to the lawsuit’s claim and ordered Herridge to testify about her reporting and any sources. Herridge sat for a deposition in September, but refused to answer any questions about the identity or intent of her sources, according to court filings.

Herridge attempted to appeal the ruling, but was instructed by the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals that the proper procedure required her to refuse to comply and then appeal the resulting contempt order.

Cooper held Herridge in contempt in February 2024, ordering that she be fined $800 a day until she complies with the subpoena. He stayed the fine for 30 days or until an appeal of the ruling is completed, whichever comes later.

Neither Herridge nor her attorney were immediately available to comment.

Follow the ongoing coverage of the contempt charge in the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker’s Arrest/Criminal Charge category.

On Aug. 1, 2023, a U.S. district judge upheld a subpoena requiring former Fox News journalist Catherine Herridge to testify about a confidential source, but quashed a subpoena seeking her documents.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled that Herridge must testify in a privacy case brought by Yanping Chen, a scientist who was the subject of a series of investigative articles published with Fox News in 2017. Chen filed a lawsuit in 2018 against the departments of Justice, Defense and Homeland Security for violations of the Privacy Act, alleging that a government official had leaked materials from an investigation into Chen’s possible foreign military ties, excerpts of which were included in Herridge’s articles.

Chen subpoenaed Herridge and Fox News in mid-2022 to determine the identity of the alleged leaker, demanding testimony and documents from each. An attorney for both the journalist and news outlet filed motions to quash Chen’s subpoenas, arguing at a court hearing in May 2023 that they posed a threat to First Amendment protections.

In upholding the subpoena ordering Herridge to testify about her reporting and any sources, Cooper ruled that the identity of the confidential source was central to the lawsuit’s claim. “Chen’s need for the requested evidence overcomes Herridge’s qualified First Amendment privilege,” he wrote.

The motions to quash the Fox News subpoenas were granted in full, with the caveat that if Herridge is unable to provide Chen with the information she seeks, Chen may reissue the subpoenas to the outlet.