A federal judge in Virginia has temporarily barred U.S. authorities from examining electronic devices seized from Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson following a raid on her home last week.
The search, executed on January 14, 2026, was part of an investigation into Aurelio Perez-Lugones, a government contractor accused of unlawfully retaining classified materials. While Natanson is not a target of the probe, federal agents seized her phone, laptops, recorder, portable hard drive, and a smartwatch, raising concerns over press freedom.
In a ruling on Wednesday, U.S. Magistrate Judge William B. Porter said The Post and Natanson had “demonstrated good cause” to maintain the status quo, preventing government officials from reviewing the materials until the court resolves the matter. The hearing is scheduled for early next month, and the government must respond by January 28.
The Washington Post argued in court that the seizure violated the First Amendment and constituted an “unconstitutional prior restraint,” blocking the reporter from contacting sources and performing her reporting duties. Natanson declared that the devices contained years of confidential sources and unpublished reporting, including information unrelated to the contractor under investigation.
The raid marked the first known instance in U.S. history of a journalist’s home being searched in a national security leak investigation, according to press freedom advocates. The move has prompted warnings that such actions could chill investigative reporting and endanger confidential sources.
Federal officials have confirmed that the contractor, Perez-Lugones, who holds a top-secret security clearance, had been messaging Natanson prior to his arrest. He has been charged with retaining classified materials but has not been accused of leaking information to the media.
Since the seizure, Natanson reported that the flow of tips from sources, typically dozens per day via encrypted messaging, has fallen to zero, highlighting the immediate impact on journalism.
The case is now being closely watched by First Amendment groups and media organizations, as its outcome may set a precedent for how far authorities can go in investigating leaks involving journalists.
