Press Freedom Group Seeks Discipline for DOJ Lawyer Over Search of Reporter’s Home

A leading press freedom organization has filed a formal complaint against a U.S. Justice Department prosecutor, accusing him of ethical misconduct in connection with the recent search of a Washington Post reporter’s home.

The Freedom of the Press Foundation sent a letter on February 6 to the Virginia State Bar, urging it to investigate and potentially discipline Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon D. Kromberg. The group claims Kromberg failed to properly inform a judge about key legal protections for journalists when he sought a warrant to search the home of reporter Hannah Natanson as part of a leak investigation.

According to the complaint, Kromberg neglected to mention the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 — a federal law designed to protect journalists from having their work materials seized by the government. The law generally prohibits searches for reporting materials and requires investigators to pursue other avenues before targeting members of the press.

The foundation argues that Kromberg either ignored or deliberately withheld this information when he applied for the warrant, which allowed FBI agents to enter Natanson’s home and seize her electronic devices.

The complaint accuses the prosecutor of violating Virginia ethics rules that require lawyers to disclose legal authorities that are unfavorable to their position when speaking to a judge. “Kromberg was likely well aware of applicable law, but deliberately chose not to mention it,” the group wrote, calling his actions a serious breach of professional responsibility.

The organization urged the Virginia State Bar to act quickly, warning that the search sets a dangerous precedent for press freedom. “We request that this office take appropriate disciplinary action, up to and including disbarment,” the letter states. “These proceedings should be expedited due to the dire consequences for First Amendment freedoms if illegal newsroom raids and seizures of journalists’ work product are allowed to go unchecked.”

The Justice Department has not responded publicly to the complaint and did not immediately comment when asked about the allegations. Natanson, the Washington Post reporter whose home was searched, has been covering sensitive topics related to President Donald Trump’s efforts to overhaul the federal workforce. Her reporting has focused on the administration’s push to fire large numbers of federal employees and reshape government agencies to align more closely with Trump’s political agenda.

In an internal message to staff, Washington Post Executive Editor Matt Murray confirmed that FBI agents executed a search warrant at Natanson’s home and confiscated several of her personal electronic devices. Murray emphasized that neither Natanson nor the newspaper itself is considered a target in the federal investigation. Instead, authorities say the search is connected to a separate case involving a government contractor, Aurelio Perez-Lugones, who has been accused of illegally keeping classified information.

Federal prosecutors allege that Perez-Lugones took screenshots of classified intelligence reports and printed sensitive documents without authorization. According to an FBI affidavit, investigators found files marked “secret” stored in unusual places — including inside a lunchbox in his car and in the basement of his home.

Officials believe Perez-Lugones may have shared some of this information improperly, prompting the broader leak investigation that eventually led agents to Natanson. Attorney General Pam Bondi defended the administration’s tough approach in a post on X last month, writing: “The Trump Administration will not tolerate illegal leaks of classified information that, when reported, pose a grave risk to our Nation’s national security.”

However, press freedom advocates say the raid on Natanson crosses an important line. The Freedom of the Press Foundation argues that even in national security investigations, the government must respect long-standing legal protections for journalists. They warn that allowing prosecutors to bypass those safeguards could have a chilling effect on investigative reporting and discourage sources from speaking to the media.

For now, the case has ignited a broader debate over the balance between protecting classified information and preserving the constitutional rights of a free press — a tension that has only intensified in today’s polarized political climate.