DOJ Prosecutor Under Legal Fire After FBI Raided Reporter's Home

A Justice Department prosecutor is facing a bar complaint related to the search of a Washington Post reporter’s home.

The Freedom of the Press Foundation filed a complaint between Feb. 6-9 with the Virginia State Bar against Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon D. Kromberg of the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging he failed to disclose key provisions of the Privacy Protection Act when seeking a warrant to search reporter Hannah Natanson’s Virginia residence.

FBI agents executed that search Jan. 14 as part of a leak investigation involving Pentagon contractor Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones, who was charged in late January in connection with alleged mishandling of classified national defense information, according to the Associated Press.

Agents seized electronic devices from Natanson, who has not been charged. News of the complaint surfaced Feb. 9, placing the warrant under intensified legal scrutiny.

The Privacy Protection Act prohibits the government from searching and seizing newsgathering materials, save in very limited circumstances. The warrant application does not appear to mention those limited circumstances, and it’s difficult to see how this search complied with the law. - Gabe Rottman, vice president of policy for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, to Military.com

Attorney General Pam Bondi said the search was conducted at the Defense Department’s request as part of the broader leak investigation, per the AP.

Military.com reached out for comment to the FBI and Justice Department.

Privacy Protection Act Put to the Test

Agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation carried out the Jan. 14 search after securing approval from a federal judge. 

The newly unsealed affidavit alleges investigators believed Natanson misled agents during the inquiry and sought a search warrant after concluding other investigative methods were insufficient. The affidavit also states investigators believed Perez-Lugones transmitted information electronically.

Investigators took Natanson’s phone, two laptops and a Garmin watch during the search. The seizure set off an immediate legal fight over how far investigators can go when the target is a journalist and the records involved may include newsgathering materials.

Congress enacted the Privacy Protection Act in 1980 to restrict government searches targeting journalists’ work and documentary materials. The statute limits the use of search warrants involving members of the news media except in narrow circumstances.

Rottman said the seizure disrupted the reporter’s ability to work and could deter sources from coming forward.

“That’s precisely why raids on newsrooms or the homes of reporters raise serious First Amendment concerns,” Rottman told Military.com.

He added that if a court determines the warrant violated federal statute or constitutional protections, judges could order the return of the seized materials and prohibit prosecutors from using anything obtained through the search.

A federal judge has barred investigators from reviewing the seized data while litigation continues. The Washington Post has asked the court to order the return of the devices. The restriction on data review remains in effect.

Legal Fight Stalls as Questions Linger

The Virginia State Bar has not indicated whether it will pursue a formal investigation into Kromberg or dismiss the complaint.

Perez-Lugones faces allegations he printed classified documents at work and later passed information to a reporter—conduct that prosecutors say crossed into unlawful handling of national defense information. Natanson has not been charged and federal prosecutors have not publicly outlined additional steps in the leak case beyond what has appeared in court filings.

The court has not yet ruled on whether the warrant complied with the Privacy Protection Act or whether the seized devices must be returned.

No congressional hearings specifically tied to the search have been scheduled. Courts and state bar authorities will determine the next steps.

A Test of Federal Press Protections

The dispute places a decades-old federal press protection statute against the government’s authority to pursue leaks involving classified national defense information.

Leak cases have repeatedly pushed the Pentagon to reassess who gets access to sensitive material and how tightly it is controlled, including calls to reduce the number of people with access after major document disclosures. That pressure now collides with protections meant to prevent investigators from using search warrants to scoop up journalists’ work product.

Judges must weigh the government’s interest in protecting classified information against constitutional safeguards for free speech and a free press.

A ruling that the warrant violated federal law could narrow how prosecutors pursue reporters in future leak cases. A contrary decision could broaden the circumstances under which investigators seek direct searches instead of subpoenas.

The outcome may shape how federal law enforcement handles journalists in national security investigations for years to come.