Judge Blocks FBI From Reviewing Devices Seized From Washington Post Reporter

The Washington Post building in Washington, D.C., as a federal judge orders the FBI not to review devices seized from a reporter’s home.

Court Orders Status Quo as Legal Challenge Unfolds

A federal judge has temporarily barred the FBI from examining electronic devices seized from the home of a Washington Post reporter, calling for a pause while the court reviews the legal and constitutional questions raised by the case.

In a ruling filed Wednesday, U.S. Magistrate Judge William B. Porter ordered the government to preserve but not access materials taken during a search of reporter Hannah Natanson’s Virginia home earlier this month. The decision came just hours after the Post and Natanson filed an emergency motion seeking the return of her devices.

“The government must preserve but must not review any of the materials,” Porter wrote, emphasizing the need to maintain the status quo until the court can more fully assess the matter.

Devices Seized in Unprecedented Search of Reporter’s Home

FBI agents seized Natanson’s cellphone, work and personal laptops, a recorder, a portable hard drive, and a Garmin smartwatch as part of an investigation involving a Pentagon contractor accused of mishandling classified information.

According to court filings, Natanson was not the target of the investigation. Still, press freedom advocates say the raid represents an extraordinary escalation in government actions against journalists.

The judge has ordered the Justice Department to respond to the Post’s motion by January 28 and scheduled a hearing for early February.

Washington Post Warns of Chilling Effect on Journalism

In a statement, the Washington Post condemned the seizure, arguing it threatens core First Amendment protections.

“The outrageous seizure of our reporter’s confidential newsgathering materials chills speech, cripples reporting, and inflicts irreparable harm,” the newspaper said.

Post Executive Editor Matt Murray echoed those concerns in an internal memo, calling the action “extraordinary and aggressive” and warning that it raises serious constitutional questions about protections for journalists.

Press Freedom Groups Sound Alarm

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press described the search as unprecedented in U.S. history for a national security leak investigation.

“This move imperils public interest reporting and will have ramifications far beyond this specific case,” said Bruce D. Brown, the organization’s president. He urged the court to block any review of the seized materials until the First Amendment issues are fully addressed.

Investigation Centers on Pentagon Contractor, Not Reporter

The underlying investigation involves Aurelio Perez-Lugones, a Navy veteran and Pentagon contractor charged with unlawful retention of national defense information. Prosecutors allege he accessed classified databases without authorization and retained sensitive materials.

Court documents do not accuse Perez-Lugones of leaking classified information, nor has he been charged with sharing it with journalists.

Attorney General Pam Bondi stated on social media that the Defense Department requested the search in connection with illegally leaked classified information. President Donald Trump separately commented that a “leaker” had been found, though he did not provide details.

Broader Implications for the First Amendment

Natanson has reported extensively on the Trump administration, including coverage of Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency’s efforts to reduce the federal workforce. Press advocates argue the case could set a dangerous precedent for journalists covering national security.

As the court prepares for a full hearing, the ruling places a temporary safeguard around seized materials — and sets the stage for a major legal test over press freedom, government power, and constitutional limits.