On January 14, FBI agents executed a search warrant at Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson's Virginia home, seizing her phone, laptops, recorder, hard drive, and Garmin watch. The raid was part of an investigation into Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones, a government contractor with top-secret clearance who was subsequently charged with unlawful retention and transmission of classified national defense information. Prosecutors allege Perez-Lugones shared classified documents with Natanson, who wrote about Venezuela using government documents. Natanson has not been accused of wrongdoing.
On Tuesday, U.S. Magistrate Judge William Porter — who originally approved the search warrant — issued a 22-page ruling blocking the Justice Department from searching the seized devices. Porter ruled the court itself would conduct an independent review to identify materials relevant to the criminal investigation, rejecting both the government's request to use a DOJ filter team and the Post's request for immediate return of the devices.
Porter sharply criticized the Justice Department for failing to disclose or analyze the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 in its warrant application. That federal law restricts government seizures of journalists' work materials when the reporter is not suspected of a crime. Porter revealed he had initially rejected warrant requests as too broad and only approved a narrowed version after two days of back-and-forth — but was unaware of the privacy law during his review. He wrote that if prosecutors had disclosed the law, he "may well have rejected the search warrant application" or directed them to use subpoenas instead.