On Wednesday morning, FBI agents searched the home of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson as part of a leak investigation — an exceptionally rare and notable occurrence given the potential impact on the activities of the press and corresponding implications for First Amendment protections.
Agents reportedly seized her phone, smartwatch, and two laptops — including one issued by the Post. We’ve written before about this Administration’s stated intention to pursue reporters’ records in leak investigations (here), but a search of a reporter’s home marks a significant escalation in the Administration’s aggressive efforts. While we continue to monitor developments, here are some immediate takeaways from our media team — a mix of First Amendment experts, former prosecutors, and national security lawyers.
The search had senior sign-off. Under the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Media Policy, DOJ officials must obtain the Attorney General’s (AG) personal authorization before seeking a warrant to search the premises, property, or communications records of a member of the news media. See 28 CFR Part 50.10(d). And indeed, soon after the search was publicly reported, the Attorney General emphasized her support for the search in a post on social media — noting “[t]he Trump Administration will not tolerate illegal leaks of classified information that, when reported, pose a grave risk to our Nation’s national security and the brave men and women who are serving our country.”
The government’s statements raise serious questions. The Post reports the journalist was told by DOJ that she is not a target of the investigation — which is apparently focused on Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones, a Navy veteran and government contractor who reportedly had access to classified information through his current position. That statement, if accurate, raises questions about whether the search comports with the Privacy Protection Act (PPA), 42 USC § 2000aa et seq., which protects journalists from searches of their homes or offices for work product or documentary materials, unless an enumerated exception applies. The most notable exception allows such a search if “there is probable cause to believe that the person possessing such materials has committed or is committing the criminal offense to which the materials relate.” 42 USC § 2000aa(a). To lawfully obtain a warrant, the government was thus likely required to convince a magistrate that there was probable cause to believe that Natanson “committed or is committing” a crime “to which the materials relate” — which would seem in tension with the government’s reported assurance that she is not a “target,” which the Justice Manual defines as a “putative defendant.” Justice Manual 9-11.151. There is, however, precedent of the government invoking this PPA exception but not charging the reporter who was subject to a search with any crime. In 2010, DOJ obtained a search warrant for the personal email account of Fox News reporter James Rosen, labeling him in a search warrant affidavit as an “aider, abettor, and/or co‑conspirator” to a leak by intelligence analyst Stephen Jin‑Woo Kim regarding North Korean nuclear tests. DOJ did not subsequently charge Rosen. This incident was controversial and was among the reasons that the government later amended its media rules to forbid DOJ from relying on traditional newsgathering as a basis to overcome the PPA. This newsgathering-protective regulation was among the restrictions that the current DOJ abandoned last year when it revised its Media Policy.
The Post reporter has potential options to get her devices or data back. A reporter in this situation may be able to file a motion for return of property pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 41(g), asserting unlawful seizure. Anyone “aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property — or by the deprivation of property — may move for the property’s return” in the district where it was seized. Depending on the particular facts and circumstances, there may be several potential statutory and constitutional arguments that the seizure was unlawful.
The scope of the government’s investigation is not clear. The scope of the government’s investigation is not clear. Typically, DOJ policy requires that “the information [i.e., the reporters’ records] sought [be] essential to a successful investigation or prosecution. As AG Bondi stated in her April memorandum launching DOJ’s new Media Policy, the “investigative techniques relating to newsgathering are an extraordinary measure to be deployed as a last resort when essential to a successful investigation or prosecution.” Interestingly, in this case, Perez-Lugones was arrested several days before the search warrant was executed on Natanson’s residence based on a significant body of evidence. This suggests that the government’s investigation may not relate solely to Perez-Lugones, but could potentially involve other investigative targets, including additional government leakers.
**
For now, this appears to be a leak prosecution of a US security clearance holder, not a reporter. Perez-Lugones has been charged with “unlawful retention of national defense information” in the District of Maryland — an Espionage Act charge routinely used in leak cases. See 18 USC § 793(e). The FBI, which searched his home in early January, alleges in charging documents that on at least four separate occasions between October 28, 2025, and January 7, 2026, Perez-Lugones accessed and viewed classified intelligence reports related to a foreign country without any prior authorization. As facts develop, we will be watching whether prosecutors use additional criminal authorities to seize reporter records, which DOJ has already signaled a willingness to use. Either way, we expect more leak investigations and prosecutions ahead, and we could see further use of criminal collection authorities directly against reporters.
