SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
freedom of the press foundation
Judge Ends Öztürk Deportation Effort But Press Freedom Group Still 'Disgusted That It Ever Happened'
"They’d throw out all of us who dissent if they could," warned the Freedom of the Press Foundation's chief of advocacy.
Feb 10, 2026
An immigration judge has terminated the Trump administration's effort to deport Rümeysa Öztürk, a doctoral student at Tufts University, for criticizing Israel, her lawyers announced on Monday.
Öztürk, a 30-year-old Turkish national, was snatched off the street by masked US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Massachusetts last March and was flown to an unsanitary detention center in Louisiana, where she spent 45 days before a judge ordered her release on bail.
The US State Department had revoked Öztürk's visa, accusing her of "support for Hamas," a designated terrorist group, and creating a “hostile environment” for Jewish students.
That accusation was based solely on an opinion piece she'd co-written with other Tufts students calling for the university to divest assets from Israel over its genocide in Gaza, which had killed over 50,000 people at the time, according to official figures.
An internal memo relied upon by Secretary of State Marco Rubio provided no evidence that Öztürk had expressed support for terrorist groups or participated in any sort of antisemitic harassment.
Documents unsealed last month by a Massachusetts judge later revealed that Rubio had approved Öztürk and several other students' deportations based solely on their advocacy for Palestinian rights.
It was for this reason that an immigration judge, Roopal Patel, an employee of President Donald Trump's own Department of Justice (DOJ), ultimately found that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had not met its burden to prove Öztürk’s removability and ordered her case to be dropped.
“Today, I breathe a sigh of relief knowing that despite the justice system’s flaws, my case may give hope to those who have also been wronged by the US government,” Öztürk wrote in a statement Monday. “Though the pain that I and thousands of other women wrongfully imprisoned by ICE have faced cannot be undone, it is heartening to know that some justice can prevail after all.”
Many of the international students who were initially detained by ICE over their advocacy have since been freed after judges ruled their detentions unlawful. But they still spent weeks or months in detention in some cases.
Jessie Rossman, legal director at the ACLU of Massachusetts, added that the decision "underscores the importance of allowing federal courts to review challenges to immigration detention" because otherwise "the government could punitively and unlawfully detain any noncitizen for months based solely on their speech so long as it simultaneously began removal proceedings."
Seth Stern, the chief of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said his organization is "thrilled that the effort to deport Rümeysa Öztürk is over," but that they "remain alarmed and disgusted that it ever happened."
"Öztürk’s case is arguably the most blatant press freedom violation of this century, and maybe the last century as well," he said. "The administration did not even bother to present a pretext for its actions—it arrested her, jailed her in horrific conditions, and sought to expel her solely because she expressed views shared by millions of Americans about one of the most important issues of our time."
Chip Gibbons, policy director of Defending Rights & Dissent, noted that the Trump administration "continues to [Öztürk] as a terrorist," even though "her only 'crime' was using the First Amendment."
Stern said that “they went after noncitizens first, not because they have any greater appreciation of the First Amendment rights of citizens, but because they’re the low-hanging fruit. They’d throw out all of us who dissent if they could.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judge Blocks Trump Admin From Searching Data Seized During Raid on Reporter's Home
“The search and seizure of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson’s records is unconstitutional and illegal in its entirety," said one free press defender.
Jan 21, 2026
A US judge on Wednesday blocked federal prosecutors from searching data on a Washington Post reporter's electronic devices seized during what one press freedom group called an "unconstitutional and illegal" raid last week.
US Magistrate Judge William B. Porter in Alexandria, Virginia—who also authorized the January 14 raid of Post reporter Hannah Natanson's home—ruled that "the government must preserve but must not review any of the materials that law enforcement seized pursuant to search warrants the court issued."
The government has until January 28 to respond to the Post's initial legal filings against the agent's actions. Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for February 6.
Natanson—who describes her work as covering "Trump's reshaping of the government"—welcomed Wednesday's order.
"I need my devices back to do my job," she said on Bluesky.
Federal Bureau of Investigation investigators executed a warrant to search Natanson's Virginia home as part of a probe into Aurelio Perez-Lugones, a federal contractor who is accused of illegally possessing classified documents. FBI agents seized Natanson’s cellphone, her smart watch, and her personal and work laptops.
As Politico senior legal affairs reporter Kyle Cheney noted, the criminal complaint for Perez-Lugones’ case contains no allegations that he gave classified documents to any Post reporter, as implied by Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel.
The Post said that the seized devices “contain years of information about past and current confidential sources and other unpublished newsgathering materials, including those she was using for current reporting."
“The government cannot meet its heavy burden to justify this intrusion, and it has ignored narrower, lawful alternatives,” the newspaper added.
As the Post noted Wednesday:
It is exceptionally rare for law enforcement officials to conduct searches at reporters’ homes. The law allows such searches, but federal regulations intended to protect a free press are designed to make it more difficult to use aggressive law enforcement tactics against reporters to obtain the identities of their sources...
The US has no law that explicitly makes it a crime for a journalist to obtain or publish classified information. In 2019, when WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was indicted under the Espionage Act for disclosing classified information, First Amendment scholars warned that his case could set a precedent that could be used against journalists. That issue was never tested in court because Assange and the government reached a plea deal in 2024.
"The outrageous seizure of our reporter’s confidential newsgathering materials chills speech, cripples reporting, and inflicts irreparable harm every day the government keeps its hands on these materials,” the Post said in a statement. “We have asked the court to order the immediate return of all seized materials and prevent their use. Anything less would license future newsroom raids and normalize censorship by search warrant.”
Free press defenders cheered Porter's order.
“The search and seizure of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson’s records is unconstitutional and illegal in its entirety," Freedom of the Press Foundation chief of advocacy Seth Stern said in a statement. "But even the Trump administration’s policies require searches of journalists’ materials to be narrow and targeted and that authorities use filter teams and other measures to avoid searching protected records."
"That the administration wouldn’t follow its own guidelines shows that the raid on Natanson’s home wasn’t about any criminal investigation, and certainly wasn’t about national security," he added.
The search and seizure of @washingtonpost.com reporter @hannahnatanson.bsky.social's records is unconstitutional and illegal in its entirety.The judge was right to block it until a full hearing, at which time he should block it permanently.Read our statement: freedom.press/issues/judge...
[image or embed]
— Freedom of the Press Foundation (@freedom.press) January 21, 2026 at 2:30 PM
“This is the first time in US history that the government has searched a reporter’s home in a national security media leak investigation, seizing potentially a vast amount of confidential data and information," Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press president Bruce Brown said in a statement. "The move imperils public interest reporting and will have ramifications far beyond this specific case."
Wednesday's order came two weeks after the Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee voted to subpoena Seth Harp, a journalist wrongly accused of “leaking classified intel” and “doxing” a US special forces commander involved in President Donald Trump’s invasion of Venezuela and abduction of the South American nation’s president and his wife.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Serious Violation': FBI Searches Home of Washington Post Journalist for Classified Documents
"This is a tremendous escalation in the administration’s intrusions into the independence of the press," said one First Amendment advocate.
Jan 14, 2026
A press freedom group on Wednesday accused the Trump administration of a "disturbing escalation" in its "war on the First Amendment" after the FBI executed a search warrant at the home of a Washington Post journalist who has extensively covered President Donald Trump's attempts to gut the federal workforce.
FBI agents reportedly conducted a search early Wednesday morning at the Virginia home of Hannah Natanson as part of an investigation into a federal contractor who is accused of illegally retaining classified documents.
"If true, this would be a serious violation of press freedom," said the Freedom of the Press Foundation in a social media post.
The Post reported that the agents seized Natanson's cellphone, Garmin watch, a personal laptop, and a laptop issued by the newspaper.
The warrant stated that the FBI was investigating Aurelio Perez-Lugones, a system administrator with top secret security clearance who has been accused of taking classified intelligence reports to his home in Maryland. The documents were found in his lunch box and basement, an FBI affidavit said.
Politico senior legal affairs reporter Kyle Cheney noted that the criminal complaint regarding Perez-Lugones' case does not mention allegations that he gave any classified documents to a reporter.
"The FBI's search and seizure of a journalist's personal and professional devices appears to be a serious violation of press freedom and underscores why we need to enact greater federal protections for both journalists and their sources," said Clayton Weimers, executive director of Reporters Without Borders North America. "Attorney General Pam Bondi confirmed the seizure is linked to an investigation into a federal contractor who is alleged to have leaked classified information. It's worth reiterating, though we shouldn't have to, that journalists have a constitutionally protected right to publish government secrets. We call for the FBI to immediately return Hannah Natanson's devices."
Jameel Jaffer, director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, told the New York Times that the FBI search at Natanson's home was "intensely concerning" and could chill "legitimate journalistic activity."
“There are important limits on the government’s authority to carry out searches that implicate First Amendment activity,” Jaffer said.
As the Committee to Protect Journalists notes in a guide to reporters' legal rights, the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 established high standards for searches and seizures of journalists' materials that are "reasonably believed to be related to media intended for dissemination to the public—including 'work product materials' (e.g., notes or voice memos containing mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, etc. of the person who prepared such materials) and 'documentary materials' (e.g., video tapes, audio tapes, photographs, and anything else physically documenting an event)."
"These materials generally cannot be searched or seized unless they are reasonably believed to relate to a crime committed by the person possessing the materials," reads the guide. "They may, however, be held for custodial storage incident to an arrest of the journalist possessing the materials, so long as the material is not searched and is returned to the arrestee intact."
Last year, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) ended a Biden-era policy that limited its ability to search or subpoena a reporter's data as part of investigations into leaks.
Attorney General Pam Bondi said the DOJ "will not tolerate unauthorized disclosures that undermine President Trump’s policies, victimize government agencies, and cause harm to the American people.”
Before becoming FBI director, Kash Patel said in 2023 that should Trump return to the White House, his administration would "come after people in the media" in efforts to target the president's enemies.
The Post reported Wednesday that "while it is not unusual for FBI agents to conduct leak investigations around reporters who publish sensitive government information, it is highly unusual and aggressive for law enforcement to conduct a search on a reporter’s home."
Natanson has spent much of Trump's second term thus far covering his efforts to fire federal employees, tens of thousands of whom have been dismissed as the president seeks to ensure the entire government workforce is pushing forward his right-wing agenda.
She wrote an essay last month for the Post in which she described being inundated with messages over the past year from more than 1,000 federal employees who wanted to tell her "how President Donald Trump was rewriting their workplace policies, firing their colleagues, or transforming their agency’s missions." She has written about the toll the mass firings have had on workers' mental health.
Bruce D. Brown, president of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said in a statement that "physical searches of reporters’ devices, homes, and belongings are some of the most invasive investigative steps law enforcement can take."
"There are specific federal laws and policies at the Department of Justice that are meant to limit searches to the most extreme cases because they endanger confidential sources far beyond just one investigation and impair public interest reporting in general," said Brown. "While we won’t know the government’s arguments about overcoming these very steep hurdles until the affidavit is made public, this is a tremendous escalation in the administration’s intrusions into the independence of the press.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular