Trump admin dealt setback in 'outrageous' bid to search Washington Post reporter's devices

A Virginia federal judge has blocked the government from examining electronic devices seized from Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson's home, dealing a significant blow to law enforcement in an unprecedented case.

U.S. Magistrate Judge William B. Porter ruled Wednesday that officials cannot access Natanson's phone, laptops, recorder, hard drive, and smartwatch until ongoing litigation is resolved. The decision came hours after The Post demanded the devices be returned, arguing the seizure "flouts the First Amendment and ignores federal statutory safeguards for journalists."

Federal agents raided Natanson's Virginia home on Jan. 14 as part of an investigation into government contractor Aurelio Perez-Lugones, accused of unlawfully obtaining classified materials. The search marks the first time the government has raided a journalist's home in a national security leak investigation.

"The outrageous seizure of our reporter’s confidential newsgathering materials chills speech, cripples reporting, and inflicts irreparable harm every day the government keeps its hands on these materials,” The Post said in a statement. “We have asked the court to order the immediate return of all seized materials and prevent their use. Anything less would license future newsroom raids and normalize censorship by search warrant," The Post stated.

The seized materials contain years of information about Natanson's confidential sources and unpublished reporting. Since the raid, her daily tips from sources have plummeted from dozens to over 100 tips per day to zero, according to the report.

The Post's attorneys reported the government initially agreed not to review the data, then reversed course, citing directives from "unnamed more senior officials." Porter ordered the government to respond to The Post's filing by Jan. 28 and scheduled a hearing for early February.

Bruce D. Brown, president of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, called the raid a threat to public-interest reporting with ramifications far beyond this case.