A senior federal prosecutor is facing a professional ethics complaint following the FBI’s search of a journalist’s home, a move that has reignited debate over press protections, government leak investigations, and the legal boundaries surrounding searches involving reporters.
The complaint, filed with the Virginia State Bar, targets Gordon D. Kromberg, an assistant U.S. attorney who helped obtain a search warrant executed earlier this year at the home of Hannah Natanson, a reporter for Washington Post. The warrant was issued as part of a criminal investigation into the alleged mishandling of classified information by a government contractor.
Allegations Raised by Press Freedom Advocates
The complaint was submitted by the Freedom of the Press Foundation, which argues that the prosecutor failed to properly inform a federal magistrate judge about the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, a federal law designed to limit searches and seizures of journalists’ work materials. The organization contends that this omission may constitute a violation of
ethical rules requiring attorneys to disclose controlling legal authority that could be adverse to their position.
According to the complaint, the law generally requires law enforcement to use subpoenas rather than search warrants when seeking journalistic materials, except under narrow circumstances. Press advocates argue that ignoring or minimizing these safeguards threatens press freedom and risks chilling investigative reporting.
The foundation has urged the state bar to consider disciplinary measures, including possible suspension or disbarment, emphasizing that lawyers representing the government carry a heightened responsibility to uphold
constitutional protections and statutory limits.
Details of the FBI Search
The search took place in January when FBI agents arrived at Natanson’s Virginia residence and seized electronic devices, including phones and computers. While the reporter herself was not accused of wrongdoing, the search stemmed from a
broader investigation into a defense-related intelligence leak.
Federal prosecutors allege that a government contractor improperly retained and disseminated classified materials. Court filings in the criminal case state that investigators discovered screenshots of classified intelligence documents, as well as materials marked “secret,” at locations connected to the contractor.
Although the reporter was not the subject of the investigation, her reporting allegedly intersected with information central to the case, prompting prosecutors to seek evidence they believed could be relevant.
DOJ and Washington Post Responses
The U.S. Department of Justice has not publicly commented on the bar complaint. Internally, the department has previously emphasized that searches involving journalists require special approvals and heightened scrutiny.
Washington Post leadership informed newsroom staff that Natanson was not considered a suspect and that the newspaper was not accused of any wrongdoing. Still, the paper expressed serious concerns about the precedent set by searching a reporter’s home rather than pursuing less intrusive legal alternatives.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation also declined to comment on the specifics of the warrant, citing ongoing litigation and standard policy regarding investigative actions.
Broader Implications for Press Freedom
The controversy has sparked renewed scrutiny of how federal prosecutors handle leak investigations involving journalists. Legal experts note that while national security cases can justify aggressive investigative tactics, the law draws clear distinctions when reporters and news organizations are involved.
Press advocates argue that searching a journalist’s home risks exposing confidential sources and undermines public trust in the government’s commitment to First Amendment values. They warn that such actions could deter whistleblowers from coming forward and weaken the press’s role as a watchdog.
Former Justice Department officials have also weighed in, noting that prosecutors are expected to go beyond minimal legal compliance when press freedoms are implicated. Ethical rules, they say, demand transparency with courts and careful consideration of alternative investigative methods.
What Happens Next
The Virginia State Bar will review the complaint to determine whether a formal investigation is warranted. Such reviews can take months and may result in dismissal, private reprimands, or formal disciplinary proceedings, depending on the findings.
Meanwhile, press freedom organizations are calling for clearer DOJ guidelines and stronger internal oversight to prevent similar incidents in the future. Some advocates have urged Congress to revisit and strengthen statutory protections for journalists in an era of digital reporting and expansive data collection.
As the bar complaint moves forward, the case is expected to remain a focal point in the ongoing national conversation about government power, ethical prosecution, and the protection of journalists’ rights in sensitive criminal investigations.
Stay ahead of critical developments affecting legal ethics, DOJ enforcement, and press freedom. Explore thousands of verified legal job opportunities and gain expert career insights at
LawCrossing, the trusted platform for attorneys navigating a rapidly changing legal landscape. Start your search today and take the next step in your legal career with confidence.
