WASHINGTON — Apple advised Donald F. McGahn II, the White Home counsel to former President Donald J. Trump, final month that the Justice Division had subpoenaed details about an account that belonged to him in February 2018, and that the federal government barred the corporate from telling him on the time, based on two individuals briefed on the matter.

Mr. McGahn’s spouse acquired an analogous discover from Apple, stated one of many individuals, who spoke on the situation of anonymity to debate a delicate matter.

It’s not clear what F.B.I. brokers had been scrutinizing, nor whether or not Mr. McGahn was their particular focus. In investigations, brokers typically compile a big checklist of cellphone numbers and e mail addresses that had been involved with a topic, and search to establish all these individuals through the use of subpoenas to communications firms for any account info like names, pc addresses and bank card numbers related to them.

Nonetheless, the disclosure that brokers secretly collected information of a sitting White Home counsel is putting because it comes amid a political backlash to revelations about Trump-era seizures of knowledge of reporters and Democrats in Congress for leak investigations. The president’s prime lawyer can be a chief level of contact between the White Home and the Justice Division.

Apple advised Mr. McGahn that it complied with the subpoena in a well timed style however declined to inform him what it offered the federal government, based on an individual briefed on the matter. Beneath Justice Division policy, gag orders for subpoenas could also be renewed for as much as a 12 months at a time, suggesting that prosecutors went to courtroom a number of occasions to forestall Apple from notifying the McGahns earlier.

Spokespeople for Apple and the Justice Division didn’t instantly reply to requests for remark. A lawyer for Mr. McGahn declined to remark.

Apple advised the McGahns that it acquired the subpoena on Feb. 23, 2018, based on an individual briefed on the matter. The opposite particular person conversant in the matter stated the subpoena had been issued by a grand jury within the Japanese District of Virginia.

It’s not clear why prosecutors obtained the subpoena. However a number of notable occasions had been occurring round that point.

One of many roughly concurrent occasions was that the federal courtroom within the Japanese District of Virginia was the middle of 1 a part of the Russia inquiry led by the particular counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, that targeted on Paul Manafort, the onetime chairman of the 2016 Trump presidential marketing campaign.

As a result of Mr. McGahn had been the highest lawyer for the Trump marketing campaign in 2016, it’s attainable that at some earlier level he had been amongst these involved with somebody whose account the Mueller staff was scrutinizing in early 2018.

Notably, Mr. Manafort had been hit with new fraud charges unsealed the day earlier than the subpoena. Subsequent developments revealed that Mr. Mueller’s investigators had been carefully scrutinizing a few of his communications accounts within the days that adopted.

One other roughly concurrent occasion was that round that point, Mr. Trump had develop into indignant at Mr. McGahn over a matter associated to the Russia investigation, and that included a leak.

In late January 2018, The New York Instances had reported, primarily based on confidential sourcing, that Mr. Trump had ordered Mr. McGahn the earlier June to have the Justice Division take away Mr. Mueller, however Mr. McGahn had refused to take action and threatened to resign. The Washington Put up confirmed that account quickly after in a follow-up article.

The Mueller report, and Mr. McGahn himself in personal testimony earlier than the Home Judiciary Committee this month, described Mr. Trump’s anger at Mr. McGahn after the Instances article, together with attempting to get him to make an announcement falsely denying it. Mr. Trump advised aides that Mr. McGahn was a “liar” and a “leaker,” based on former Trump administration officers. In his testimony, Mr. McGahn stated that he had been a supply for The Put up’s follow-up to make clear a nuance — to whom he had conveyed his intentions to resign — however he had not been a supply for the unique Instances article.

There are causes to doubt that Mr. McGahn was the goal of any Justice Division leak investigation stemming from that episode, nonetheless. Amongst others, details about Mr. Trump’s orders to have Mr. Mueller eliminated doesn’t look like the form of labeled national-security secret that it may be a criminal offense to reveal with out authorization.

One more roughly concurrent occasion is that the subpoena to Apple that swept up Mr. McGahn’s info got here shortly after one other one the Justice Division had despatched to Apple on Feb. 6, 2018, for a leak investigation associated to unauthorized disclosures of details about the Russia inquiry, ensnaring information on congressional workers members, their households and a minimum of two members of Congress.

Amongst these whose information was secretly seized below a gag order, and who had been solely just lately notified, had been two Democrats on the Home Intelligence Committee: Eric Swalwell and Adam B. Schiff, each of California. Mr. Schiff, a pointy political adversary of Mr. Trump, is now the panel’s chairman. The Instances first reported on that subpoena final week.

Many questions stay unanswered in regards to the occasions main as much as the politically delicate subpoenas, together with how excessive they had been approved within the Trump Justice Division and whether or not investigators anticipated or hoped that they had been going to comb in information on the politically outstanding lawmakers. The subpoena sought information on 109 e mail addresses and cellphone numbers.

In that case, the leak investigation appeared to have been primarily targeted on Michael Bahar, then a workers member on the Home Intelligence Committee. Individuals near Jeff Classes and Rod J. Rosenstein, the highest two Justice Division officers on the time, have stated that neither knew that prosecutors had sought information in regards to the accounts of lawmakers for that investigation.

It stays murky whether or not brokers had been pursuing a principle that Mr. Bahar had leaked on his personal or whether or not they suspected him of speaking to reporters with the approval of the lawmakers. Both manner, it seems they had been unable to show their suspicions that he was the supply of any unauthorized disclosures; the case has been closed and no expenses had been introduced.

Katie Benner and Adam Goldman contributed reporting.