'Washington Post' Journalist Who Had Home Raided By Trump's FBI Just Won Pulitzer Prize—And Her Reaction In Viral Video Says It All

Natanson led an investigation into DOGE's dysfunction and the larger federal workforce reduction and government overhaul. In January, the Justice Department seized two computers, a recorder, Garmin watch, phone and a portable hard drive from Natanson during a home raid in an investigation into an official accused of leaking classified material.Natanson had been in communication with Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones before he was arrested and indicted in Maryland on charges of unlawfully obtaining and distributing classified information. Both prosecutors and Natanson have maintained that evidence contained on her phone is unlikely to yield information materially relevant to Perez-Lugones’s case.The raid severely impacted Natanson's ability to do her work and she later told the judge and the government that “I need my devices back to do my job, drawing significant attention amid the Trump administration's wider attacks against press freedom.Natanson's work covering the federal workforce culminated in her receiving the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service—but the atmosphere in the newsroom as they celebrated the news was a somber one, with Natanson looking haunted by what has no doubt been a stressful experience.You can see her reaction in the video below. Many were chilled by the gravity of the situation but nonetheless praised Natanson's fearlessness in the face of governmental pressure. Natanson's Pulitzer victory came as U.S. District Judge Anthony J. Trenga condemned the seizure of her devices.In an order on Monday, the judge noted that Natanson’s devices are protected from seizure under the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, which bars government officials from searching for or confiscating a journalist’s “work product” or “documentary materials” as part of a criminal investigation.He wrote that given the large volume of non-responsive documents among the Seized Material, the Court cannot ignore the seizure’s effect on Natanson’s ability to function as a journalist.Trenga also pointed out that Nor can the Court ignore, whether intended or not, the harassing and chilling effects such a seizure could have on a reporter, particularly one focused on Executive Branch conduct and where the Government contends that ‘all of the [Seized Material] is presumptively relevant to the investigation at this point.