Can Journalists Be Prosecuted for Publishing Classified Information?

Last updated 4 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

The FBI showed up at Hannah Natanson’s Virginia home on January 15, 2026, with a search warrant. They took her phone, her smartwatch, two laptops—one of them issued by the Washington Post, where she works as a reporter. The agents walked out with years of confidential source communications, unpublished reporting, editorial discussions, and potentially sensitive data about stories that had nothing to do with why they were there.

This wasn’t a subpoena for phone records, the kind of thing that sparked outrage during the Obama years. This was federal agents physically searching a journalist’s home and seizing the tools of her trade.

Attorney General Pam Bondi defended it, explicitly noting that she had “rescinded Garland’s memo that reporters will not be subpoenaed, we will not look at reporters’ phones.” Bondi’s statement was posted on X/Twitter, though Fox News and other outlets subsequently reported on it. The administration isn’t backing away from this. They’re proud of it.

This brings us to the question that’s haunted American constitutional law for more than a century: Can journalists be prosecuted for publishing classified material?

The answer has always been “technically yes, but no one’s done it.” That gap between statutory authority and prosecutorial practice might be closing.

The Espionage Act of 1917

The legal mechanism exists. The Espionage Act of 1917 makes it a crime to keep or share national defense secrets without authorization. The law doesn’t distinguish between a government employee with a security clearance, a contractor who steals documents, or a journalist who publishes them.

Yet in 107 years, no journalist has been successfully prosecuted under it for publishing classified material. Not the New York Times for the Pentagon Papers. Not the Washington Post for the same. In those cases, the government attempted to stop publication through prior restraint, but the Supreme Court rejected that effort—the newspapers themselves were never prosecuted. Not any of the newspapers that published Edward Snowden’s NSA revelations. Not even WikiLeaks, exactly—Julian Assange’s guilty plea was carefully structured around the theory that he helped Chelsea Manning steal the documents, not that he merely published them.

Prosecutors choosing not to charge journalists reflected an understanding, never quite formalized into Supreme Court doctrine but widely accepted nonetheless, that the First Amendment creates some protection for journalists who publish classified material they receive from sources. The exact limits of that protection remain deliberately unclear, because the Supreme Court has spent fifty years avoiding the question.

In the Pentagon Papers case, the Court ruled that the government couldn’t use an injunction to stop publication before it happens.

Why No One Has Crossed This Line Before

Modern administrations have had opportunities to prosecute journalists for publishing classified material. The Nixon administration after the Pentagon Papers. The Reagan administration after various Cold War leaks. The Obama administration prosecuted more people under the Espionage Act for leaking than all previous administrations combined.

But they never charged a journalist.

The pattern has been consistent: prosecute the source, look into the journalist’s work, but stop before charging the journalist. Administrations worried that prosecuting a journalist for publishing classified material would force courts to finally answer the First Amendment question they’d been avoiding, and there was a real possibility the government would lose.

Losing would mean establishing precedent that the First Amendment protects publication of classified material, potentially constraining future administrations’ ability to control leaks. Winning would mean criminalizing investigative journalism and facing the political backlash that comes with putting reporters in prison for doing their jobs.

The Trump administration appears to be operating under different assumptions.

The Privacy Protection Act and the Natanson Warrant

Congress passed the Privacy Protection Act in 1980 specifically to stop law enforcement from raiding newsrooms and journalists’ homes. The statute came out of a 1971 FBI raid on the Stanford Daily, when agents showed up at the student newspaper’s offices with a warrant and went through files without warning.

The law says federal law enforcement can’t get a warrant to look through a journalist’s home or office for work product or documentary materials unless one of two narrow exceptions applies. The first exception: there’s probable cause to believe the journalist has committed or is committing a crime “to which the materials relate.”

The Justice Department says Natanson is “not a target” of the investigation—which, in government legal language, means she’s not someone they’re planning to charge. But to legally go through her home under the Privacy Protection Act, they needed probable cause that she committed a crime.

You can’t have it both ways. Either there’s probable cause she committed a crime (in which case she should be a target), or there isn’t (in which case the warrant violated the Privacy Protection Act).

Legal analysts have noted this contradiction. A federal judge approved the warrant anyway.

How the Administration Changed Policy

In April 2025, eight months before the Natanson raid, Attorney General Bondi rescinded the Justice Department guidelines that had protected journalists from investigation since the Obama administration’s second term. Those guidelines established that prosecutors shouldn’t investigate journalists for crimes based on ordinary newsgathering activities, and that warrants against journalists should only be used as a “last resort” when other investigative techniques had been exhausted.

Bondi kept the “last resort” language but removed the prohibition against investigating journalists for newsgathering itself.

Prosecutors now have explicit authorization to pursue journalists in leak investigations. The institutional barriers that existed for the past decade—the ones that made prosecutors think twice before targeting reporters—are gone.

When Bondi defended the Natanson raid, she framed it as necessary to combat leaks that “pose a grave risk to our Nation’s national security.” The message was clear: this administration views journalist investigations as a legitimate prosecutorial tool.

The Underlying Case Against Perez-Lugones

The investigation that led to Natanson’s home being raided centers on Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones, a Navy veteran and system administrator for a Pentagon contractor who held a top-secret clearance. He was arrested on January 9, 2026, and charged with keeping classified government secrets without permission.

Notice what he wasn’t charged with: unlawful disclosure to a reporter.

The FBI affidavit says Perez-Lugones accessed classified intelligence reports about a foreign country without authorization, allegedly printed screenshots, and took classified material home in his lunchbox. The Justice Department indicated that at the time of his arrest, he was “communicating with the Washington Post reporter on his mobile device and in the chat there was classified material.”

But the affidavit contains no allegations that he disclosed classified material to Natanson. No allegations that she solicited or encouraged any illegal conduct. They were communicating, and classified material existed in the chat.

If Perez-Lugones shared classified intelligence with Natanson, he would be the one facing charges for disclosure—which is the historical pattern. Sources get prosecuted. Publishers don’t.

The fact that the affidavit doesn’t clearly say he shared secrets with her suggests the government’s real interest might be in using her devices to identify other sources, or to investigate her editorial judgment about what to publish.

What Seizing a Journalist’s Devices Exposes

When FBI agents took Natanson’s phone, smartwatch, and laptops, they didn’t get evidence related to Perez-Lugones or the Venezuela reporting she’d been working on. They got years of communications with confidential sources, unpublished reporting, editorial discussions, personal details about family and colleagues, and potentially sensitive data about other stories the Post is investigating.

The Freedom of the Press Foundation put it directly: “The administration may now be in possession of volumes of journalist correspondence having nothing to do with any pending investigation.”

Sources she’s been in contact with—on any story, about any topic—are now potentially exposed. Their identifying details, their messages, their concerns about confidentiality, all of it is sitting in FBI forensic analysts’ computers.

Sources become scared. Sources who were considering coming forward with details about government wrongdoing now know that even if they’ve done nothing illegal, their messages with journalists can be seized and reviewed. Future sources become less willing to talk. The mechanisms through which the public learns about government misconduct get disrupted.

The warrant typically describes specific material being sought—”all messages between Hannah Natanson and Aurelio Perez-Lugones regarding classified material,” for example. But once law enforcement possesses the devices, they can examine everything—files, messages, emails, photographs.

In theory, someone could ask a judge to limit what law enforcement can look at. In practice, by the time such motions get heard, the forensic examination is already done.

How Prosecutors Might Charge a Journalist

If the Trump administration decides to prosecute Natanson or another journalist, what would the charges look like?

The straightforward approach: charge her under the part of the Espionage Act that prosecutors usually use in leak cases. Prosecutors would argue that Natanson knowingly retained classified documents—her notes, source messages, any documents given to her by sources—with knowledge that they related to national defense.

The constitutional problem is obvious: the law treats everyone the same, but applying it to journalists doing their jobs raises First Amendment concerns. Prosecutors might try to get around this by emphasizing retention rather than publication—arguing that keeping classified material in her files, even temporarily as part of reporting, violated the Espionage Act.

But retention was inseparable from publication. You can’t publish without first retaining.

Another way prosecutors could charge her, based on how they handled Julian Assange, would be claiming she helped someone break the law or worked together to break it. Prosecutors would argue that Natanson, by seeking out sources and incentivizing them to disclose classified material through the promise of media coverage, was assisting Perez-Lugones’ violation of the Espionage Act.

This theory would make ordinary investigative journalism illegal—seeking sources, asking questions, expressing interest in sensitive material, offering the opportunity for publication. If journalists can be prosecuted for encouraging sources to disclose classified material, investigative journalism involving government secrecy becomes legally impossible.

The Assange case tried to narrow the charges by emphasizing that he took specific technical steps to help Chelsea Manning steal documents and conceal her identity—conduct arguably distinguishable from ordinary journalism. But that distinction is fragile. Most investigative reporters take steps to protect their sources’ identities. Most talk with sources about what material would be newsworthy. Prosecutors could draw the line between “ordinary journalism” and “conspiracy to steal secrets” almost anywhere they want.

Press Freedom Organizations Respond

Within days of the raid, 31 press freedom and civil liberties organizations issued a joint statement condemning it. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, the ACLU, the Committee to Protect Journalists, Freedom of the Press Foundation, PEN America, Reporters Without Borders—the coalition represented virtually all major organizations working on freedom of the press.

Their statement called the raid “the most extreme form of intimidation” and “government invasion of a reporter’s home, and seizure of journalistic materials, exactly the kind of abuse of power the First Amendment is designed to prevent.”

They called on Congress to exercise oversight by hauling Bondi before committees to answer questions. They called for passing the PRESS Act, which would limit government surveillance of journalists and the ability to compel them to reveal sources. They called for reforming the Espionage Act so it can’t be used against journalists. They called for a resolution confirming that recording law enforcement activity is protected by the First Amendment.

None of this is likely to happen in the current Congress.

The Washington Post issued a statement from executive editor Matt Murray noting that while the paper isn’t a target, “this extraordinary, aggressive action is deeply concerning and raises profound questions and concern around the constitutional protections for our work.” The Post’s billionaire owner Jeff Bezos, who has had previous conflicts with the Trump administration over taxes and regulation, didn’t issue a public statement.

That silence is itself notable. Even powerful news organizations may feel constrained in their ability to resist government action when the owner has other business interests that could be targeted.

How Other Democracies Handle This

The United States isn’t alone in grappling with the tension between national security and freedom of the press. Many democracies have laws that could theoretically criminalize journalists’ publication of classified material. The United Kingdom’s Official Secrets Act, for example, maintains criminal penalties for unauthorized disclosure.

But in practice, British courts have been reluctant to prosecute journalists for publication. When British newspapers published details about U.S. surveillance programs revealed by Edward Snowden, the government prosecuted the source—a GCHQ contractor—rather than the journalists. Canada’s legal framework similarly protects journalists through interpretations of freedom of expression rights. Australia has attempted to prosecute journalists in some high-profile cases but has generally backed away.

What distinguishes the United States isn’t the existence of laws that could criminalize publication—many democracies have those. It’s the widespread agreement among courts and officials that the First Amendment limits government power to enforce those laws against the media.

The Pentagon Papers case set a rule: the government must meet an extremely heavy burden to stop publication before it happens. The historical pattern of not prosecuting publishers reflected an understanding that the First Amendment provides similar protection against criminal punishment for publication.

That widespread agreement is what’s at stake now.

The Constitutional Question Courts Have Avoided

The Supreme Court has never ruled definitively on whether the First Amendment protects journalists who publish classified material. The Pentagon Papers case only addressed the government stopping publication in advance—whether the government could prevent publication before it happens.

This ambiguity has persisted because prosecutors haven’t forced the issue. They’ve investigated journalists, seized their records, labeled them co-conspirators in warrant affidavits—but they haven’t charged them.

If the Trump administration prosecutes Natanson or another journalist, courts will finally have to answer the question. Courts would have to balance two things: the government’s need to protect military secrets versus the First Amendment’s protection for free press and the public’s right to know what its government is doing.

A potential framework might examine whether the publication created immediate, serious danger to national security—something so direct and immediate that it could justify punishment despite First Amendment protection. Using this test, most publication of classified material would remain protected, because the government couldn’t demonstrate imminent danger.

But in exceptional circumstances—publication of details that directly endangered secret military missions or personnel in the field—the government’s security interest might outweigh First Amendment protection.

The problem is that the Supreme Court has never officially approved this approach for Espionage Act cases. And prosecutors have never attempted to bring a case specifically structured around it. If they do, they’ll be asking courts to create new doctrine that limits freedom of the press in ways that have never been formally recognized.

Will the Administration Prosecute?

The more immediate question isn’t whether journalists can theoretically be prosecuted, but whether this administration will try.

The public statements provide hints but remain carefully ambiguous. Bondi defended the raid and highlighted her rescission of protective guidelines, suggesting the administration views journalist investigation as legitimate. But neither she nor any other official has stated an intention to prosecute Natanson.

This ambiguity might be strategic. The seizure of Natanson’s devices gives prosecutors access to all her messages, source relationships, and work product—details valuable for identifying other government sources and understanding how sensitive material moves from government to the media. Whether they charge her may depend on what they discover and how the political environment develops.

The political cost of prosecuting a prominent journalist at a major newspaper would be substantial. It would unite much of the media and significant portions of the political and legal establishment in opposition. Unlike leakers—government employees who swore oaths to protect classified material—journalists occupy a constitutionally protected role.

But the Trump administration has demonstrated throughout 2025 and early 2026 a willingness to defy conventional political costs. The decision to rescind protective guidelines represented a deliberate reversal of two decades of precedent. The raid itself was defended publicly rather than conducted quietly. The administration has also targeted other journalists, including through a House Oversight Committee subpoena for investigative reporter Seth Harp.

These actions suggest an administration willing to deploy state power against journalists in ways previous administrations considered constitutionally problematic.

The Implications of Prosecuting a Journalist

If the Trump administration successfully prosecutes a journalist under the Espionage Act, the implications extend far beyond the individual case. Such a prosecution would effectively make investigative journalism about classified material illegal, deterring journalists from pursuing stories about government secrecy and wrongdoing.

Journalists would face the prospect of home raids, device seizures, prosecution, and imprisonment for doing their jobs—reporting on matters of public significance that the government classified.

This would fundamentally weaken the freedom of the press Americans have historically had. The Pentagon Papers precedent and the pattern of not prosecuting journalists reflected widespread agreement that the First Amendment protects journalism, even when it involves classified material. Breaking that agreement would open an era in which the government’s ability to classify material translates into an ability to silence journalistic investigation of that material.

Government officials could classify material for political reasons instead of real security concerns—because it was politically embarrassing or revealed illegal conduct. Journalists would face criminal liability for publishing truthful details about government actions, even when that material was necessary for democratic accountability.

Whistleblowers and sources would become even more reluctant to come forward, knowing that journalists they contacted could be subject to warrants and prosecution. The public’s ability to learn about government wrongdoing would be significantly constrained. Congress and other oversight bodies depend on information that often starts as classified secrets leaked to journalists.

The prosecutorial weapon would almost certainly be deployed selectively, against news organizations and journalists the administration views as hostile. The Trump administration has already shown it enforces laws differently depending on who it targets. This would turn the courts and prosecutors into a tool for suppressing critical journalism.

The Unwritten Rule That Could Change

The question of whether journalists can be prosecuted for publishing classified material has remained abstract for more than half a century. The Natanson case threatens to make it urgent and real.

The law technically allows prosecution. The obstacles remain serious but have never been tested in court. Courts might finally have to resolve questions they’ve avoided for decades.

The answer, and the precedent it establishes, will shape freedom of the press and democratic accountability in America for generations. That’s what happens when you finally test a constitutional principle that’s been protected by nothing more than prosecutors choosing not to charge journalists.

And that restraint was never a constitutional guarantee. It was an unwritten rule. And unwritten rules can change.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.