The FBI Just Searched a Journalist's Home. That Hadn't Happened Before.

The FBI walked into Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson's Virginia home on January 14 and left with her phone, two laptops, a recorder, a portable hard drive, and a Garmin watch.

Not because she committed a crime. Because someone allegedly sent her classified information.

That's new.

Journalists get subpoenaed. They get hauled before grand juries. Their sources get prosecuted. But the FBI doesn't search their homes. Until now.

The Method Is the Message

The government says this is about national security. A Pentagon contractor named Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones allegedly leaked classified documents to Natanson through encrypted messaging. He's been indicted on six counts.

Fair enough. Leaking classified info is illegal. Prosecuting leakers is standard.

But here's what's not standard: showing up at a reporter's door with a warrant.

The Privacy Protection Act of 1980 exists specifically to prevent this. Congress passed it after earlier government abuses targeting journalists. The law says you can't search a reporter's home or newsroom for materials unless the journalist is suspected of committing certain crimes related to those materials.

Natanson isn't accused of anything. She reported the news. That's her job.

DOJ Forgot to Mention the Law

Here's the wild part: when DOJ applied for the warrant, they didn't tell the judge about the Privacy Protection Act. They just... left it out.

A federal judge later slammed them for it. On February 25, Judge William B. Porter blocked DOJ from searching Natanson's seized devices, ruling the court would review them instead.

"The government appears to have ignored a crucial press freedom guardrail," said Gabe Rottman, vice president of policy for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

The Justice Department has had guidelines protecting journalists from searches since the Nixon administration. They exist because people understood that you can't have a free press if reporters' homes get raided every time they publish something the government doesn't like.

Those guidelines got weakened under Attorney General Pam Bondi. This search happened three weeks later.

The Precedent Problem

Nobody's saying classified leaks are fine. The government has legitimate reasons to protect national security secrets.

But there's a reason journalists have historically been shielded from home searches, even when investigating leaks. The method changes the game.

When you subpoena a reporter, you're asking questions. When you search their home, you're sending a message: we can show up at your door, take your devices, and access every source you've ever contacted.

That's intimidation, whether it's intended or not.

And once it's done once, it becomes easier to do again. The unprecedented becomes precedent.

Knight First Amendment Institute Executive Director Jameel Jaffer put it bluntly: "Searches of newsrooms and journalists are hallmarks of illiberal regimes, and we must ensure that these practices are not normalized here."

What Comes Next

Natanson's devices are still in government hands. The judge said the court will review them first, not DOJ. That's a win for press freedom—but the search already happened.

The contractor faces trial. The investigation continues. And every reporter covering national security now knows: your home isn't off-limits anymore.

The line between protecting secrets and protecting democracy just moved. Whether the government meant to intimidate the press doesn't matter.

The method already sent the message.