"We're at war, and we must protect America's secrets," he said, adding that the Times' sources, by disclosing the program, had committed a "shameful act" that had undermined American security.
After disclosing the program last December, The New York Times also reported that the agency had gathered data from phone and e-mail traffic with the cooperation of several major telecommunications companies.
Princeton said in a statement it had not used the money improperly, although it did not adequately disclose the program's nature to the foundation board.
That, plus the legality issue, has left me wondering what harm actually was avoided when The Times and two other newspapers disclosed the program.
After The New York Times disclosed the program in 2005 and questions were raised about its constitutionality, Congress in 2008 amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, granting broad power to the executive branch to conduct surveillance aimed at persons overseas without an individual warrant.
Since Mr. Snowden disclosed the program, the agency has said that while it gathers data on billions of calls, it makes only a few hundred queries in the database each year, when it has "reasonable, articulable suspicion" that a telephone number is connected to terrorism.
As earlier disclosed, the program will use blunt cash incentives to get servicers, lenders, investors and borrowers to rework distressed mortgages into ones with lower more manageable payments equal to 38% of a borrower's income.
President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Republican legislators have singled out The Times in recent days for disclosing the counterterrorism program, even though The Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal published articles the same day.
Both The Guardian and The Washington Post, which also published articles disclosing the surveillance programs, identified Mr. Snowden on Sunday as the source for their articles.
In an effort to persuade the editors not to disclose the eavesdropping program, senior officials repeatedly cited the lack of dissent as evidence of the program's lawfulness.
Since The New York Times first disclosed the eavesdropping program in December, some who witnessed the earlier era have followed the news with an eerie feeling that events are being replayed.
