Weeks after Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson wrote a first-person article about how she had become the paper’s “federal government whisperer” as she had received over a thousand tips from federal employees negatively impacted by the Trump administration, she suddenly had her phone and laptops seized by FBI agents.
The execution of a federal search warrant at Natanson’s home, which was part of an investigation into a government contractor accused of illegally retaining classified material, sparked across the board outrage from journalists and free press organizations on Wednesday.
“Searches of newsrooms and journalists are hallmarks of illiberal regimes, and we must ensure that these practices are not normalized here,” the Knight First Amendment Institute stated on Wednesday.
It also led to Natanson’s colleagues at the Post standing up for the well-respected reporter, noting that it showed that the administration – led by a president who has aggressively ramped up his legal threats and attacks on the media – is now directly going after journalists “for doing journalism.”
On top of that, some in the press wondered if this would finally spur Jeff Bezos, the megawealthy owner of the Washington Post who has pushed the paper’s opinion section to the right in an apparent effort to curry favor with Donald Trump, to speak out against the president.
Natanson was at home when FBI agents showed up to her Virginia house on Wednesday morning with a search warrant. The investigators seized her phone, two laptop computers and a Garmin watch. The warrant served to Natanson said that the FBI was investigating Aurelio Perez-Lugones, a system administrator with top-secret clearance who was accused of accessing and retaining classified intelligence that was found in his lunchbox and home.
While investigators told Natanson she was not a focus of the probe and the criminal complaint does not currently allege that Perez-Lugones had disseminated any classified information, Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel both accused Natanson of reporting on “illegally leaked information” and placing “warfighters” in danger.
“In addition to other oddities about this statement, it’s inaccurate: the contractor is not an alleged leaker — at least not yet (his charges are about retaining, not disseminating classified information). And he was arrested last week, not this week,” Politico’s Kyle Cheney noted about Patel’s tweet about the search of Natanson’s home, adding: “The government argued for his detention, saying he *could* disseminate classified info if released. But no charges on that yet.”
Additionally, there is no American law that explicitly makes it illegal for a journalist to obtain and publish classified information, though that was almost tested in court after Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was indicted under the Espionage Act in 2019. He would later reach a plea deal with the government in 2024.
In an email to the Post’s newsroom on Wednesday, executive editor Matt Murray called the search and seizure an “extraordinary, aggressive action” that is “deeply concerning and raises profound questions and concern around the constitutional protections for our work.” He added that the paper “has a long history of zealous support for robust press freedoms” and that the “entire institution stands by those freedoms and our work.”
The former executive editor of the Post, Marty Baron, also noted on Wednesday that this was a “clear and appalling sign that this administration will set no limits on its acts of aggression against an independent press.”
Baron’s remarks were echoed by Washington Post reporter Drew Harwell, who posted on social media that “this is an outrage” before sounding the alarm about the administration’s actions. “Important to be clear-eyed about what this FBI search means,” Harwell wrote. “The Trump administration is going after a journalist for doing journalism.”
Other Post reporters told CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter that they’re “all scrambling to figure out what additional precautions we need to take” and are “scared for ourselves,” all while wondering “how best to further protect sources and secure our reporting and devices.”
The Bulwark’s Sam Stein, meanwhile, was one of several journalists calling for Bezos to publicly comment on the matter, saying “this is an important moment” for the Amazon chief and even “the absence of him speaking out on this would be a psychic blow to the paper and industry.”
Free speech and press organizations have also expressed alarm over the FBI’s extraordinarily rare search of a reporter’s home.
“Targeting a reporter in their own home as part of a federal law enforcement action is an extraordinary escalation that strikes at the heart of press freedom. A government action this rare and aggressive signals a growing assault on independent reporting and undermines the First Amendment. It is intended to intimidate sources and chill journalists’ ability to gather news and hold the government accountable,” PEN America journalism and disinformation program director Tim Richardson said in a statement.
“Such behavior is more commonly associated with authoritarian police states than democratic societies that recognize journalism’s essential role in informing the public,” Richardson added. “The Justice Department and the FBI must immediately provide a clear, public justification for why such an extreme measure was taken against a journalist, and Congress must provide proper oversight.”
The Knight Institute’s executive director Jameel Jaffer stated that searches of journalists warrant “intense scrutiny because these kinds of searches can deter and impede reporting that is vital to our democracy,” adding that Bondi has “weakened guidelines” that were meant to protect the free press.
“The Justice Department should explain publicly why it believes this search was necessary and legally permissible, and Congress and the courts should scrutinize that explanation carefully,” Jaffer continued. “Searches of newsrooms and journalists are hallmarks of illiberal regimes, and we must ensure that these practices are not normalized here.”
The National Press Club noted that while leak investigations aren’t new, “searching a reporter’s residence crosses a line that has long been avoided precisely because of the chilling effect it can have on lawful newsgathering and source relationships.” The organization added that the “country should take seriously” instances when those protections appear to be at risk.
“Physical searches of reporters’ devices, homes, and belongings are some of the most invasive investigative steps law enforcement can take,” Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press president Bruce D. Brown said.
“There are specific federal laws and policies at the Department of Justice that are meant to limit searches to the most extreme cases because they endanger confidential sources far beyond just one investigation and impair public interest reporting in general,” he further stated.
“While we won’t know the government’s arguments about overcoming these very steep hurdles until the affidavit is made public, this is a tremendous escalation in the administration’s intrusions into the independence of the press,” Brown concluded.
