Editorial: FBI raid on reporter's Virginia home demands vigorous opposition

The Virginian-Pilot and Daily Press Editorial Board, The Virginian-Pilot on Jan 22, 2026

Published in Op Eds

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

The U.S. Department of Justice’s seizure of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson’s phone, laptops and a smart watch last week represents an unacceptable and unconstitutional intrusion on the rights of journalists. The First Amendment affords members of the media specific protections against laws infringing on their work, and court cases throughout the nation’s history have confirmed the importance of a free and independent press to a thriving and healthy democracy.

In this case, the actions of the FBI and Department of Justice are indefensible.

Press advocacy groups justifiably howled in outrage after federal agents raided Natanson’s Virginia home and took her electronic devices. The Knight Institute for the First Amendment warned that “searches of newsrooms and journalists are hallmarks of illiberal regimes” and the Society of Professional Journalists said firmly, “A democracy does not grow stronger by intimidating the press. It grows weaker.”

The Washington Post Editorial Board correctly called the FBI raid on the home of their federal workforce reporter “ an aggressive attack on the press freedom of all journalists.” But what should have been a roaring defense of a colleague and a robust call for the Trump administration to honor the Constitution ended weakly with a promise that, “The Post’s important work will continue unabated.”

That tepid response could be because the newspaper’s owner, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, doesn’t want to cross President Donald Trump. Like many in the billionaire class, he hopes that currying favor with Trump will help protect his wealth and business interests, and he has been silent since the raid.

If those with financial resources and political capital do not stand up in the face of increasingly authoritarian tactics, one can hardly expect humble editorial writers to do so. But — like every American watching events unfold in Minneapolis, Chicago, Los Angeles, and now the Virginia home of a journalist — do so, they should.

Do so, they must.

As the Post reported, federal authorities are investigating the alleged misuse of classified documents by a government contractor, Aurelio Perez-Lugones, a system administrator in Maryland. Arrested this month, Perez-Lugones had restricted documents at his home and had been exchanging messages with Natanson.

But the criminal complaint against Perez-Lugones makes no mention of him leaking documents to journalists. Natanson hasn’t been charged with a crime and investigators told her she’s not the subject of the probe.

The DOJ also sent a subpoena to the Post Jan. 14 regarding the case. That’s how these things are typically handled. Whether the newspaper chooses to comply with the request or defend itself from the government’s prying remains to be seen.

But the heavy handed tactics used by federal authorities are intended to serve another purpose, one readily evident to Americans watching agents callously brutalize people across this country. Force is used to inspire fear, and fear is essential to cultivate obedience.

That won’t work on journalists. The First Amendment remains enshrined in our nation’s governing document, and Privacy Protection Act of 1980 generally prohibits search warrants against journalists who aren’t accused of a crime.

Americans know that press freedom is essential to their understanding of government actions, and that attempts to intimate members of the media are intended to limit what the public sees and hears.

Trump is hardly the first president to do battle with journalists. Hostility was a hallmark of Richard Nixon’s relationship with the press, and both George W. Bush and Barack Obama used the Espionage Act to target reporters and unmask their sources.

The government has every right to try to plug leaks, to protect classified information and to prosecute those who mishandle documents, whether they be kept in a Maryland basement or a gilded bathroom in Florida.

But to raid a journalist’s home for her tangential involvement in a leak investigation is an alarming escalation against press freedom. And while the loudest criticism should be coming from Bezos and the Post’s Opinion page, all Americans should join the chorus denouncing this extraordinary action and defending the rights of journalists to work free from government interference.