Prosecutors Seek to Overturn Review of Reporter's Seized Devices in Leak Probe

Federal prosecutors formally appealed Magistrate Judge William B. Porter's order blocking the Justice Department from directly searching Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson's seized electronic devices, asking a district court judge in the Eastern District of Virginia to vacate the ruling and restore the government's control over the review process.

The appeal, filed in March 2026, targets Porter's February 24 decision, in which he ruled that the court, not a government filter team, would conduct an independent judicial review of Natanson's two laptops, mobile phone, portable drive, recording device, and exercise watch. Those items were seized during a pre-dawn FBI raid on her Virginia home on January 14. In his 22-page ruling, Porter said that allowing government lawyers unsupervised access to a reporter's newsgathering materials would be "the equivalent of leaving the government's fox in charge of the Washington Post's henhouse."

The underlying investigation centers on Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones, a systems engineer in Maryland who held a top-secret security clearance and was charged with unlawfully transmitting and retaining national defense information. Prosecutors allege Perez-Lugones transmitted classified material to Natanson through an encrypted messaging application, and that the information later appeared in her published articles. He pleaded not guilty to five counts of unlawfully transmitting national defense information and one count of unlawfully retaining it. Natanson herself is not under investigation.

In their appeal, prosecutors argued that executing search warrants is a core function of the executive branch and that Porter's court-led review approach violates the Constitution's separation of powers. They also contended that Natanson is not entitled to a special search procedure merely because she is a journalist. "As a reporter, Ms. Natanson is subject like any other citizen to a legitimate use of criminal legal process in a criminal investigation, such as this search warrant," prosecutors wrote.

Porter had sharply rebuked the Justice Department in his February ruling for failing to disclose the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, a federal law that restricts the government's ability to raid journalists or newsrooms to seize unpublished work materials, when applying for the search warrant. DOJ attorney Gordon Kromberg acknowledged knowing about the law but told Porter the omission was justified by department memos suggesting it did not apply when a journalist is believed to have received materials related to a crime. Porter called that failure a "matter of significant concern" that had "seriously undermined the court's confidence in the government's disclosures."

Natanson, who covers the federal workforce and has reported extensively on government firings, national security, and diplomacy during the second Trump administration, said in a sworn declaration that the seizure of all her devices had "eliminated my ability to collect information and publish news stories." She added that she had used those devices to communicate with more than 1,200 confidential government sources, meaning any search could expose sources unrelated to the Perez-Lugones case.

The Post, responding to Porter's February ruling, welcomed his "recognition of core First Amendment protections and its rejection of the government's expansionist arguments." Attorney General Pam Bondi, defending the original raid, said it was aimed at catching perpetrators of "illegal leaks" that "pose a grave risk to our Nation's national security."

The appeal is now before a district judge in the Eastern District of Virginia. Until it is resolved, Porter's planned independent review of the devices remains on hold, prolonging Natanson's inability to access tools central to her reporting.