In a stinging rebuke of the Justice Department’s tactics under Attorney General Pam Bondi, a federal judge has blocked government investigators from searching electronic devices seized from Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson.
U.S. Magistrate Judge William B. Porter issued a blistering 22-page opinion late Tuesday, reversing his own earlier authorization of the search. Porter ruled that the DOJ—which has aggressively pursued government leakers under the second Trump administration—cannot be trusted to police its own review of the journalist’s work product. Instead, in a rare move that signals deep judicial skepticism, the court itself will conduct the examination of the seized materials.
A “Fox in the Henhouse” Scenario
The ruling follows a high-profile Jan. 14 pre-dawn raid on Natanson’s Virginia home, where FBI agents seized two laptops, a cell phone, a portable hard drive, and even a Garmin smartwatch. While the DOJ framed the seizure as a necessary step in a national security leak investigation, Judge Porter concluded that allowing a government “filter team” to sift through the devices would pose an unacceptable risk to press freedom.
“Allowing the government’s filter team to search a reporter’s work product—most of which consists of unrelated information from confidential sources—is the equivalent of leaving the government’s fox in charge of the Washington Post’s henhouse,” Porter wrote.
The judge’s shift comes after he learned prosecutors failed to disclose critical information when they first applied for the warrant. Specifically, Porter noted the DOJ neglected to mention the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, a federal law designed to prevent the government from seizing journalists’ work materials.
The Investigation Behind the Raid
The government’s probe centers on Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones, a 61-year-old Pentagon contractor with top-secret clearance. Perez-Lugones was indicted in Maryland last month on charges of unlawfully obtaining and sharing classified national defense information.
According to court filings:
- The Target: Prosecutors allege Perez-Lugones shared classified documents with a reporter via encrypted messaging apps.
- The Reporter: Hannah Natanson, who has co-authored several reports on the administration’s overhaul of the federal workforce, was identified as the recipient, though she is not the focus of the criminal investigation.
- The Impact: The Washington Post argued the seizure has had a “chilling effect,” noting that Natanson’s daily influx of tips from her 1,200 federal sources dropped to zero following the raid.
Judicial Mistrust and Omissions
Porter’s opinion expressed frustration that the DOJ had not been more transparent. He revealed that he only learned Natanson was not a target through media reports after the warrant was executed.
“The government’s failure to identify the [Privacy Protection Act] as applicable… has seriously undermined the Court’s confidence in the government’s disclosures,” Porter stated. He added that had the law been properly cited, he might have rejected the warrant altogether in favor of a less intrusive subpoena.
Attorney General Pam Bondi has stood by the investigation, previously stating that the administration will not tolerate “illegal leaks” that “pose a grave risk to our Nation’s national security.” However, this latest ruling adds to a string of legal challenges facing her department as it navigates the tension between national security and the First Amendment.
What’s Next?
While the judge denied the Washington Post’s request for the immediate return of the devices, the court-led review will begin shortly to identify only the specific files relevant to the Perez-Lugones case. All unrelated materials are expected to be returned to Natanson once the review is complete. A status hearing is scheduled for next week to finalize the timeline for the independent judicial examination.
