Judge Blocks DOJ From Contents Of Reporter's Devices

A federal judge in Virginia has blocked the Justice Department from searching electronic devices seized from Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson, ruling instead that the court itself will conduct an independent review of the materials.

U.S. Magistrate Judge William Porter rejected the government's request for an unsupervised search, criticizing the approach as akin to "leaving the government’s fox in charge of the Washington Post’s henhouse." 

He cited concerns over the potential for broad examination of a reporter’s work product, including confidential sources unrelated to the case.

Hannah Natanson

The ruling comes after FBI agents executed a search warrant at Natanson's Virginia home in January 2026, seizing her phone, laptops, recorder, smartwatch, and hard drive. The action was part of an investigation into Aurelio Perez-Lugones, a Maryland-based government contractor and systems engineer with top-secret clearance, who faces charges of unlawful retention of national-defense information. Authorities alleged probable cause that Natanson's devices contained classified material, possibly including unpublished information that could harm national security.

The search of a journalist's home drew widespread criticism from press-freedom advocates as a rare and aggressive step under the Trump administration's efforts to curb government leaks. The Washington Post stated that neither it nor Natanson was a target of the probe, and the news organization filed a motion to return the seized items, arguing the action chilled speech, harmed reporting, and caused irreparable damage. Press groups, including the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, submitted amicus support.

In his decision, Judge Porter, who had initially approved the warrant, also faulted the government for not adequately addressing journalist protections under laws like the Privacy Protection Act. He ordered the return of unrelated data and emphasized that the court's review would balance national security needs with First Amendment safeguards.

The Washington Post applauded the ruling as a defense of core press protections against the government's "expansionist arguments." The Justice Department did not immediately comment.