In an unusual legal intervention, a federal magistrate judge has imposed a temporary restriction on the Justice Department’s ability to examine electronic devices confiscated from Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson during a recent FBI raid. Magistrate Judge William B. Porter issued a standstill order shortly after The Post pursued the injunction, mandating that federal authorities must preserve, but refrain from reviewing, any seized materials until further judicial authorization is granted.
The case centers on an early morning law enforcement operation that resulted in the seizure of various devices belonging to Natanson. According to statements from The Washington Post, the raid was related to a federal probe involving Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones, a government contractor holding high-level security clearances, who had recently been apprehended on charges of illegally possessing classified documents. The government reportedly indicated it did not plan to begin an in-depth examination of Natanson’s phone contacts, emails, or related records until at least the subsequent week, prompting the newspaper to seek judicial protection preemptively.
The materials seized during the FBI intervention at Natanson’s residence reportedly include two smartphones, two laptops, a Garmin watch, a portable hard drive, and a standalone recording device. The Post responded swiftly, denouncing the seizure of a journalist’s confidential newsgathering equipment as a violation of constitutional safeguards on free speech and freedom of the press.
In motions filed within the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, The Post requested both to prevent federal prosecutors from reviewing the content of Natanson’s devices and to compel the immediate return of these materials. The publication’s legal team argued that without explicit court approval, the government’s impending unrestricted search of a reporter’s tools could infringe upon First Amendment protections and the attorney-client privilege. They further highlighted statutory provisions designed to protect reporters and underscored the potential erosion of source confidentiality, a fundamental aspect of investigative journalism.
Emphasizing the broader implications, The Post warned that allowing such a search to proceed unchallenged might set a precedent leading to repeated newsroom raids and normalize governmental censorship enforced via search warrants.
It is pertinent to note that Natanson herself has not been subjected to any accusation of wrongdoing. U.S. law does not criminalize journalists for receiving or publishing leaked documents, even when the original sources face legal consequences in connection with those disclosures. Notably, shortly before the raid, Natanson, known as the Post's “federal government whisperer,” co-authored a high-profile report on Venezuela based on government records that The Washington Post had obtained.
Officials including FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi have hinted that Perez-Lugones might be linked to Natanson as a confidential source, suggesting his alleged leak of classified Pentagon documents to her. However, to this point, legal proceedings have charged Perez-Lugones solely with the unauthorized retention of classified materials, without accusations of leaking such documents to the media.
The Post’s attorneys contended in their court submission that the majority of data confiscated from Natanson’s possessions bears little relevance to the actual scope of the search warrant, which specifically targets records tied to the single government contractor under investigation. It was also stressed that on the same day as the raid, the Justice Department issued a grand jury subpoena to the newspaper seeking largely the same materials, raising questions about the necessity and proportionality of the warrant-based search.
The newspaper’s legal counsel argued that the government could have pursued less intrusive means, such as issuing a direct subpoena to Natanson herself instead of executing a comprehensive search warrant. This approach, historically employed, sharply contrasts with the broad seizure effort, which The Post characterized as an attempt to find a specific item by confiscating an entire “haystack.”
The magistrate judge has set a hearing for February 6 to allow both sides to present arguments regarding the access and handling of the seized devices. Until then, the Justice Department must maintain the status quo and refrain from reviewing the materials collected during the raid.