The FBI raid on our reporter's home

Summary

Post Reports: "The FBI raid on our reporter's home"
Washington Post, January 15, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode of Post Reports dives into the unprecedented FBI raid on Washington Post reporter Hannah Natenson’s home, conducted as part of a national security case involving a government contractor. Hosts Elahe Izadi and Colby Ikowicz discuss the raid’s implications for press freedom, government leak investigations, and the evolving landscape for journalists and their sources with democracy reporter Sarah Ellison. The episode concludes with a replay of a 2025 interview with Hannah Natenson about her work building trusted relationships with federal employee sources.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

The FBI Raid: What Happened?

• Summary of Events

  • Early Wednesday morning, FBI agents raided Hannah Natenson’s Virginia home, seizing her personal and work devices, including a phone, two laptops, and a Garmin watch ([02:12]).
  • The search was part of an investigation into Aurelio Perez Lugones, a Maryland contractor accused of unlawfully taking classified documents home ([02:39]).

• Link to Ongoing Investigation

  • While neither Natenson nor the Washington Post are targets of the investigation, they have been swept up due to alleged contacts with the contractor, who was texting Natenson when apprehended ([03:18]).
  • The Post itself was subpoenaed for information about communications with the contractor ([03:18]).

Why Is This Different? Legal and Historical Context

• An Exceptional Step

  • Unlike common subpoenas, home raids against journalists are strikingly rare and aggressive, leaving little room for challenge before execution ([06:44], [07:00]).
    • Quote: “What's highly unusual and aggressive in this case is for law enforcement to come to someone's house and conduct a search of everything in their home.” – Sarah Ellison ([06:44])

• Legal Protections for Journalists

  • Privacy Protection Act (1980): Bars search warrants for journalists’ work material unless the journalist is suspected of a crime; exceptions are made for national security ([07:56]).
  • No law criminalizes a journalist for obtaining or publishing classified information, but prosecution of sources can rope in journalists ([09:23]).
  • Many protections are customary, not legal, making aggressive moves like this especially alarming to journalists.

• Recent Policy Shifts

  • Under the second Trump administration, Attorney General Pam Bondi rescinded a Biden-era policy protecting reporters from having their phone records searched during leak investigations ([11:16]).
    • Quote: “She said in an internal memo at the time that the media should not be afforded such protections. She said that this conduct is illegal and wrong and it must stop.” – Sarah Ellison ([11:16])

Reaction from Journalists & Concerns for Press Freedom

• Shock and Fear Among Journalists

  • Many described the raid as a “jarring escalation” ([00:59], [13:02]) and immediately started reviewing information security practices.
    • National security reporters, in particular, began employing new tactics (e.g., disabling phone facial recognition to avoid easy access by law enforcement) ([13:02]).

• Chilling Effect on Sources

  • The raid is likely to scare federal employees away from communicating with the press, with historical precedent suggesting sources are less willing to come forward after such events ([17:19]).
    • Quote: “...it really can send a massive chill through the federal workforce who’s concerned about being found out. Everyone thinks they know the risks of this kind of thing. What we heard from people was that it was inevitably something that was going to frighten federal employees and maybe was designed to do that.” – Sarah Ellison ([17:19])

How Natenson Became a "Federal Worker Whisperer"

• Building Trust with Federal Sources

  • Natenson recounts the exhausting, high-volume outreach she managed after publicizing her secure Signal number in federal worker Reddit forums ([21:31], [22:59]).
    • Quote: “Since late January, just on signal alone, not counting folks who have emailed me or called me on my cell phone, I have had 785 federal workers reach out to me.” – Hannah Natenson ([21:31])
  • She emphasized responding to every source, even just to listen, finding the work both intense and a public service ([22:59], [24:32]).
    • Quote: “There were a couple weeks and weekends where I would fall asleep at about 11pm trying to respond to people on Signal and then wake up at 6am and keep responding... I have a system to process the tips… But for a bit there, it was kind of crazy.” – Hannah Natenson ([22:59])

• Reddit as a Sourcing Tool

  • By sharing stories and contact info on Reddit’s large federal worker subforums, Natenson became a go-to contact for whistleblowers ([24:43]):
    • Quote: "I started this practice of posting my stories in there with gift links and my contact information again. And that has just built and built and built. And so I've had several posts go, like, very viral. And at this point, a lot of people just know who I am from Reddit." – Hannah Natenson ([24:43])

Security Risks and Broader Implications

• Security Risks Are Deeper Than Messenger Apps
  • Natenson argues the larger risk to government security comes from firing talented, often young federal workers who could become targets for foreign actors, rather than the use of secure messaging apps like Signal ([26:27]).
  • She also raises concerns about haphazard data-handling and dismissed offices creating new vulnerabilities ([27:08]).
    • Quote: "Anytime data is in transit, it becomes more accessible. ... But the Doge and the Trump administration attitude with everything is to move fast, fire people fast, don't care who they are, get rid of whole offices fast. It doesn't matter if you're getting rid of an office that was integral to our safety as a country." – Hannah Natenson ([27:08])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the Unprecedented Nature of the Raid

  • “Raiding a reporter's home is a much more intrusive step that obviates the ability to challenge that raid in court before it happens. And according to our sources, it's exceedingly unusual, if not entirely unprecedented.” – Sarah Ellison ([07:00])

• On Sourcing and Burnout

  • "At times, it’s been as many as, like, a new person every three minutes." – Hannah Natenson ([22:59])

• On The Risks to Press Freedom

  • "This was a jarring new step towards blocking information that the government doesn't want to get out to the world." – Sarah Ellison ([13:02])

• On the Chilling Effect

  • "After that fact became public, people in the national security world wouldn't meet with his reporters. They were so concerned about their information being exposed." – Sarah Ellison, paraphrasing Ted Brightus ([17:19])

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [02:12] – Sarah Ellison describes the raid on Natenson’s home and seizure of devices
• [03:18] – Discussion of the FBI warrant, connection to Perez Lugones, and The Post's subpoena
• [06:44] – How home raids on journalists differ from usual government investigations
• [07:56] – Legal protections for journalists and limitations of the Privacy Protection Act
• [11:16] – Changes in government policy under the Trump administration regarding journalist protections
• [13:02] – Journalists’ responses, security adjustments, and feelings after the raid
• [17:19] – Anticipated chilling effect on federal employee sources
• [21:31] – Natenson on the scale of whistleblower contacts and her sourcing process
• [24:43] – Natenson explains how Reddit became a key to her sourcing strategy
• [26:27] – Discussion on actual security risks, focusing on firings and data handling

---

Overall Tone

The episode is urgent and serious, underscoring the rarity and significance of the FBI’s actions. It highlights the anxiety within journalistic circles and federal workforces, while also demonstrating the resolve of reporters like Natenson, who see their roles as critical to democracy and public service.

---

Summary

This episode offers a detailed look at the escalating risks faced by investigative journalists in the US, the evolving tactics of federal law enforcement in leak investigations, and the chilling implications for both press freedom and whistleblower confidence. Through expert interviews and first-hand accounts, listeners gain insight into the precarious conditions under which major reporting on government functions now takes place.

Transcript

[Hannah Natenson]

Bettering your business takes working with the best.

[James Hardie / Shopify / Quince Advertiser]

With the James Hardie alliance, you gain.

[Hannah Natenson]

Access to leads, training, networking, and support.

[James Hardie / Shopify / Quince Advertiser]

From the number one brand of siding in North America. Achieve new levels of success by joining the James Hardy Alliance. Today.

[Elahe Izadi]

Early Wednesday morning, the FBI raided a reporter's home, the home of our colleague, federal government reporter Hannah Natenson. Raids like this are exceptionally rare. It was part of a national security case focused on a government contractor. That's according to the warrant. And neither Hannah nor the Post are targets of the investigation, the Post has been told. But Hannah has spent the past year covering the Trump administration's efforts to fire federal workers, and she has more than a thousand sources. The raid of her home has now raised alarms for free press advocates and journalists, says democracy reporter Sarah Ellison.

[Sarah Ellison]

The people we talked to just saw the FBI search of Hannah Natenson's home as a really jarring escalation aimed at reporters gathering information on the government.

[Elahe Izadi]

From the newsroom of the Washington Post, this is Post Reports. I'm Elahe izadi. It's Thursday, January 15th. Today we're going to bring you an excerpt from an interview we did with Hannah last year. She talks about how she became a trusted reporter for federal workers who wanted to alert the public about what was happening inside of the government. But first, I speak with democracy reporter Sarah Ellison. We talk about why the FBI's actions here were so unusual and how journalists are confronting a new reality and. And trying to bring important stories to light. Hi, Sarah.

[Sarah Ellison]

Hi. Thanks for having me.

[Elahe Izadi]

Yeah, thanks for joining us this morning. I want to start with simply just what happened on Wednesday morning at the home of Hannah Nson.

[Sarah Ellison]

Sure. Hannah Natenson was at home in Virginia at the time of the search. It was early in the morning and federal agents searched her home and her devices. They took her phone, two laptops, and a Garmin watch. One of the laptops was her personal computer and the other was a Washington Post issued laptop.

[Elahe Izadi]

So these agents arrived at her home with a warrant. What was the warrant about?

[Sarah Ellison]

The warrant said that law enforcement was investigating Aurelio Perez Lugones, a system administrator in Maryland who has top secret security clearance and has been accused of accessing and taking home classified intelligence reports that were found in his lunchbox and his basement. That's according to the FBI affidavit.

[Elahe Izadi]

And has he been charged with a crime?

[Sarah Ellison]

He was charged with unlawfully retaining national defense information last Friday.

[Elahe Izadi]

Is there anything else at this stage that we know about any potential connection between Perez Ligonias and Hannah Natenson?

[Sarah Ellison]

We know from our reporting that he was texting with her at the time that he was apprehended. The Post also received a subpoena Wednesday morning seeking information related to this guy. The subpoena also asked the Post to hand over any communication between the contractor and other employees at the Post.

[Elahe Izadi]

So, again, the warrant and the investigation is not accusing Hannah or the Post of any wrongdoing, but it seems like they have been swept up in connection to this investigation into a government contractor.

[Sarah Ellison]

Yes, and that's often the way that journalists get swept up into these things. Journalists are typically not the target of an investigation, but they are the people who are on the receiving end, or at least alleged to be on the receiving end. And they're essentially sort of brought into these investigations because the whistleblowers or the government employees are allegedly giving them information.

[Elahe Izadi]

So before we just leave, what happened in the case of Hannah Natenson, when you and your colleagues reached out to the FBI for comment, what did you hear back?

[Sarah Ellison]

The FBI did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but the bureau's director, Kash Patel, wrote on social media that the alleged leaked information endangered the military. He wrote, this morning, the FBI and partners executed a search warrant of an individual at the Washington Post who was found to allegedly be obtaining and reporting classified sensitive military information from a government contractor, endangering our warfighters and compromising American national security.

[Elahe Izadi]

You know, I think part of the reason that people, and particularly people who are in the press freedom world, were alarmed in part by this raid is because of what Hannah covers. She covers the federal workforce. And for now, what do we need to know about what her work over the past year has been like?

[Sarah Ellison]

So Hannah has been covering the federal workforce for the past year, and she's been part of the Post's most high profile and sensitive coverage during Trump's, you know, second administration. And in December, she outlined in personal and great detail her account of what it was like doing this work. She talked about how she posted her secure phone number to an online forum for government workers and got more than a thousand sources, with federal workers frequently reaching out to her to share their frustrations and just their general accounts of what was happening inside their offices.

[Elahe Izadi]

Yeah, that was the first person piece published by the Washington Post. So this was public knowledge. People knew the nature of her work.

[Sarah Ellison]

Exactly. I mean, this was published on December 24th of last year. And she went into great detail about what that experience was like and how absorbing it was for her to hear from these people. 24, 7 yeah.

[Elahe Izadi]

So broadening out. Now, I know that the federal government in both Republican and Democratic administrations have conducted leak investigations and that this has swept up reporters. What makes this moment so different and unusual?

[Sarah Ellison]

So it's not that unusual for FBI agents to conduct leak investigations. And reporters have been subpoenaed for information pretty regularly. Most of those subpoenas are challenged, and the news organization gets involved immediately, and then there's a negotiation. What's highly unusual and aggressive in this case is for law enforcement to come to someone's house and conduct a search of everything in their home. So these subpoenas are not what's unusual. It's the way that the government went about this. Raiding a reporter's home is a much more intrusive step that obviates the ability to challenge that raid in court before it happens. And according to our sources, it's exceedingly unusual, if not entirely unprecedented.

[Elahe Izadi]

And I'm curious about the legal protections that journalists have to withstand pressure from the government to give over material and information about potential sources.

[Sarah Ellison]

There are federal regulations intended to protect a free press, and they're designed to make it difficult to use aggressive law enforcement tactics against reporters. There's a 1980 law called the Privacy Protection act, and that bars search warrants for reporters work materials unless the reporters themselves are suspected of committing a crime related to their work. Often there are exceptions for national security, and that's one of the things that has been invoked many times over the years. But it was during the Obama administration when we saw a huge escalation of people who worked for the federal government being charged with a very obscure espionage act. And it was something that the Obama administration used more than anything any other previous administration, or I should say all other previous administrations combined. There was really a period during the Obama administration when reporters were pretty surprised and press freedom advocates were concerned about how aggressive the Obama administration was being about going after federal employees who they suspected of leaking information to reporters.

[Elahe Izadi]

And to be clear, is there a law that makes it a crime for a journalist to obtain or publish classified information?

[Sarah Ellison]

No. The US has no law that explicitly makes it a crime for a journalist to obtain or publish classified information. It's the prosecution of the alleged source which. Which ropes in the journalists. But as the world has gotten more digital and we've seen the lines between who is a journalist and who isn't a journalist, and people like WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange come into public consciousness, and, you know, he was indicted in 2019 under the Espionage act for disclosing classified Information. And at the time, First Amendment scholars warned that his case could set a precedent that could be used against journalists. Now, that's not been tested because Assange took a plea deal and the case never went to trial. But. But a lot of the protections that journalists enjoy are by custom and not necessarily by law. So historically, the Justice Department doesn't investigate or prosecute reporters who share information that's given to them by confidential sources. But we have seen the appetite for this increase and the overall atmosphere for reporters has gotten less friendly journalists are less popular, and investigative reporters and people who do this sensitive kind of reporting are increasingly on the lookout for this kind of incursion into their work product.

[Elahe Izadi]

Mm. Sarah, how have legal protections been like under the second Trump administration? Have there been any policies or revisions to departmental guidance of how investigators should treat journalists? When. When thinking about classified.

[Sarah Ellison]

Yes. In April, Attorney General Pam Bondi rescinded a Biden era policy that prevented officials from searching reporters phone records when trying to identify government personnel who have provided sensitive information to reporters. She said in an internal memo at the time that the media should not be afforded such protections. She said that this conduct is illegal and wrong and it must stop. That's according to this internal memo which our colleagues obtained a copy of. She also eliminated a ban on saying that a reporter is a criminal or part of a criminal investigation in order to get their records. So we mentioned the 1980 Privacy Protection Act. There is a carve out for that that if the reporter is a co conspirator or if the reporter is the target of the investigation, you can access their mater. And this happened under the Obama administration where a Fox News reporter was labeled a co conspirator in order for the government to get his communications. That's something that Bondi said that the Justice Department would be able to go back to doing.

[Elahe Izadi]

Yeah, I see. Sarah, I know that you and your colleagues have been trying to take the temperature of how all of this is leaving other journalists feeling. And journalists who cover really sensitive matters and do rely on sources to give them tips and information that then leads to breaking stories that are in the public interest. How are journalists digesting these developments and this moment, how are they responding to the FBI raid?

[Sarah Ellison]

A lot of the people we spoke to yesterday described feeling shocked. They thought that this was a sort of. They saw this as a jarring new step towards blocking information that the government doesn't want to get out to the world. We spoke to a number of different reporters. There was a national security reporter who told us that he'd turned off the facial recognition software on his phone. You know, when you look at your phone and it can automatically open. He did that because he thought it would be much easier for investigators to sort of put the phone in front of his face rather than compel him to enter his password. We talked to a White House reporter who, you know, immediately said that they were going to go back and look at how they manage information from sources. People were consulting their lawyers. They were hearing from, you know, sources who were concerned that these reporters had locked down their information. Because as careful as reporters are, this kind of a warrant, you know, at six in the morning with no warning, which is what we understand this warrant to have been, that there was no previous communication with Hannah about coming to her house. It really caused a lot of reporters to think about exactly how they are protecting themselves and their sources, because it felt unprecedented.

[Elahe Izadi]

And how do reporters think about protecting themselves and their sources in general? Like, can you just speak to how that work?

[Sarah Ellison]

I mean, essentially, when reporters promise confidentiality to their sources, they're entering into a verbal contract. And sources, especially at the federal government, really have to trust reporters to keep that information away from the broader world. I mean, it's a huge risk for federal employees to talk to journalists. And journalists are more and more aware of the risks that their sources are taking. The world has changed so much since the days of Woodward and Bernstein and their source, Deep Throat, because everything we do is electronic. People use their cell phones. They send emails. We're using electronic calendars. So much of this makes it really possible for our movements to be surveilled, whether you're a reporter or not. And so reporters are becoming really careful and savvy about the ways that they communicate with their sources. And encryption is a key way to do that. Really complicated passwords, changing your passwords. You know, people use burner phones. Burner phone refers to something that is a cell phone that you have that isn't necessarily attached to a particular account and that you can throw away after a certain period of time. Reporters have used computers that were never connected to the Internet to take notes on particularly sensitive material and look at particularly sensitive documents. That was something that when the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden shared information with reporters that they went through incredibly rigorous security protocols. So the profession has really been learning how to maintain a source's anonymity and security in this increasingly digital world where everything is so easily tracked. And that's, you know, that's just become a new reality for reporting in the 21st century. And what we found yesterday when we were talking to people was that this raid was a real wake up call to people who are in this profession, even if you are incredibly careful.

[Elahe Izadi]

Yeah, yeah. I'm also left wondering what impact this could have on federal employees and just other people who might want to talk to the press. And what have you heard on that?

[Sarah Ellison]

The chilling effect is something that we talk about a lot. But this is a moment where I talked to reporters who had been caught up in previous investigations from the government. And Ted Brightus, who was a Washington investigations editor for the Associated Press, he had his phone records secretly obtained by the government. And he told us that after that fact became public, people in the national security world wouldn't meet with his reporters. They were so concerned about their information being exposed. So. So it's something that really terrifies people who work in the federal government. You can lose your security clearance if the reporters that you're talking to don't know or are not in control of the information that is being shared with them. It really can send a massive chill through the federal workforce who's concerned about being found out. Everyone thinks they know the risks of this kind of thing. What we heard from people was that it was inevitably something that was going to frighten federal employees and maybe was designed to do that.

[Elahe Izadi]

Sarah, thank you so much for your time.

[Sarah Ellison]

Thanks for having me.

[Elahe Izadi]

Sarah Ellison is a democracy reporter for the Post. After the break, we'll hear from Hannah Natenson about how she became the Federal government whisperer. We'll be right back.

[James Hardie / Shopify / Quince Advertiser]

Every January, we all make our list of New Year's resolutions. For some it may be to work out more or for others to eat healthier. For some it may be to finally start that small business idea you've had but just haven't pulled the trigger on yet. Well, there really is no better time than now if you have that idea. Ride the momentum of New Year motivation and turn your idea into something real. Whatever it is though, the most powerful move to make it all happen in 2026 is to start your business with Shopify. Shopify gives you everything you need to sell online and in person. Setup is fast with Shopify's built in AI tool that writes product descriptions and headlines and help you edit product photos. Marketing is built in too. Create email and social media campaigns that reach customers wherever they scroll. As you grow, Shopify grows with you. Handle more orders, expand to new markets and do it all from the same dashboard. In 2026, stop waiting and start selling with Shopify. Sign up for your $1 per month trial and start selling today at shopify.com reports. Go to shopify.com reports. That's shopify.com reports hear your first this new year with Shopify by your side. I love starting the new year with a wardrobe refresh. If you're like me, then Quince has you covered with luxe essentials that feel effortless and look polished. They're perfect for layering, mixing and building a wardrobe that lasts. Their versatile style makes it easy to reach for them day after day. Quince has all the staples covered from soft Mongolian cashmere sweaters that feel like designer pieces without the markup to 100% silk tops and skirts for easy dressing to perfectly cut denim for everyday wear. Their wardrobe essentials are crafted to last sleek season after season. And like everything from Quint's, each piece is made with premium materials in ethical, trusted factories, then priced far below what other luxury brands charge. I've told you about how much I love my cashmere sweater before, but let me also tell you about the leather jacket I have from Quinte. It doesn't just look great at a great price, which would be enough, honestly. It also holds up better than any other leather jacket I've ever had, all while still being super quality, not the cheap stuff. Refresh your wardrobe with Quince. Don't wait. Go to Quince.com reports for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Quince.com reports to get free shipping and 365 day returns, Quince.com reports.

[Hannah Natenson]

Since late January, just on signal alone, not counting folks who have emailed me or called me on my cell phone, I have had 785 federal workers reach out to me. And they're all reaching out to say things like what's going on at their agencies? What's going on with their personal professional lives?

[Elahe Izadi]

That's Washington Post reporter Hannah Natenson from an interview she recorded with Post reports in April 2025. Since then, the number of federal workers who've reached out to her many over the encrypted messaging app signal, has grown to more than a thousand.

[Hannah Natenson]

So many of them feel like what they're seeing is not normal. It's breaking the norms of American democracies. It's forcing them to violate the oaths they all swore to the Constitution when they took their jobs to the federal government.

[Elahe Izadi]

We're going to revisit this April conversation Hannah had with co host Colby Ikowicz. They talked about How Hannah developed so many sources. Here's Colby and Hannah.

[Colby Ikowicz]

I mean, I've been watching. You're reporting with such awe because as a reporter, to get a tip from someone on the inside of an institution is rare in and of itself. And you've been getting hundreds. I mean, what has it been like for you to be on the receiving end of all of these federal workers desires to let the public know about what's going on?

[Hannah Natenson]

It's been pretty exhausting. There tend to be big waves of people reaching out. When something happens or when I have a story that, for whatever reason, resonates with a lot of people, then I'll get. At times, it's been as many as, like, a new person every three minutes. And the thing about it is, just given what these people are going through and given the newsiness of this moment, I always feel like I have to respond to every person. And I do eventually respond to every person. Unfortunately, I'm also somewhat OCD and inbox zero. So there were a couple. There were a couple weeks and weekends where I would fall asleep at about 11pm trying to respond to people on signal and then wake up at 6am and keep responding to people on signal. And my fiance was not happy with me for a little bit there. But at this point, I have a system to process the tips, and I've got a much better handle on it now. But for a bit there, it was kind of crazy.

[Colby Ikowicz]

Yeah. How do you even choose, like, what tips to follow versus, you know, which are just. You may be just someone who needs to vent.

[Hannah Natenson]

Well, I mean, it's usually apparent from the message if they're just in a really awful position personally or if it's news people who just want to vent. I always try to make time for that. And sometimes it's just as much as, like, they don't even need to get on the phone. They just want to hear back from someone saying, I hear you. I'm sorry this happened. And that's what I say. And then sometimes some of them end up in stories, and sometimes they just want to keep chatting. And so I've. I've just done that for them.

[Colby Ikowicz]

That's a lot to take on.

[Hannah Natenson]

It's been somewhat intense at times, but it feels like a public service, if that makes sense.

[Colby Ikowicz]

Yeah. How do you think you became kind of the federal government worker whisperer?

[Hannah Natenson]

Well, I can tell you exactly. Before all this started, I covered education, and I had a tip. I think it was related to the Education Department. And I noticed this Reddit sub forum called RFEDNews, where there are, at this point, I think, half a million federal workers in there. There weren't quite as many when this all started, but I just. Very early, I think it was January 23rd, 25th, not too long after the administration started, I just posted this sort of vague question relating to this one tip, and I listed my and a colleague's names, emails and signals, and it took off. And I got a bunch of outreach from that, from feds. And then I sort of realized how valuable of a sourcing element this was. And once these people had taken the risk to speak to me, I felt like I wanted to tell them that I'd. Apart from the individual sources. Like, I wanted the people in this Reddit sub forum to know that I was not just mining them, I was actually writing news that was relevant to their lives because people were brave enough to talk to me. So I started this practice of posting my stories in there with gift links and my contact information again. And that has just built and built and built. And so I've had several posts go, like, very viral. And at this point, a lot of people just know who I am from Reddit.

[Colby Ikowicz]

That's incredible. I was thinking, because all of these people are reaching out to you on Signal, and obviously Signal was in the news recently for a journalist getting added to a Signal chat and being privy to war plans.

[Elahe Izadi]

Has the fact that all these federal.

[Colby Ikowicz]

Government employees are reaching out to a reporter on Signal, has that created any kind of security risk for the federal government?

[Hannah Natenson]

I mean, I would say the security risk that I hear from federal workers and I hear from experts is not so much the idea that people are reaching out on Signal, which is sort of a secure, encrypted messaging app. The number of people who are being let go or fired, especially really young, talented people who worked maybe in more sensitive areas, that's more what's been flagged to me as a security concern, because those are the exact kind of people that foreign countries would want to target. That's always been true. Like, if they want to get information about the inner workings of the federal government, disaffected ex federal workers are a great target. And you got a lot of them right now.

[Colby Ikowicz]

Oh, that's so interesting.

[Hannah Natenson]

Also, the way that DOGE is handling what they're doing. So often it comes to how they're handling federal data, which they're diving deep into many different federal databases. And I have a story coming about this, but in many cases, trying to merge them or pass the data through different places quite swiftly and without following normal security protocols. That, to experts is also creating a big security risk because anytime data is in transit, it becomes more accessible. And if you don't follow the sort of staid, typical procedures that have guided the federal government until now, you have a much higher risk of getting hacked. But the Doge and the Trump administration attitude with everything is to move fast, fire people fast, don't care who they are, get rid of whole offices fast. It doesn't matter if you're getting rid of an office that was integral to our safety as a country. Yeah, so I'd say that's the bigger concern I've heard signal I'd say that's not the biggest security risk that has been flagged to me.

[Elahe Izadi]

Hannah Natenson covers the federal government for the Post. She spoke with co host Colby Ikowicz in April 2025. That's it for Post reports. Thanks for listening. Today's episode was produced by Rennie Stranovsky. It was edited by Dennis Funk with help from Martine Powers. It was mixed by Sam Baer. The April 23, 2025 episode was produced and mixed by Ted Muldoon and edited by Peter Bresnan. If you want to show your support for the show, consider subscribing to the Washington Post. Not only is this a great way to help us continue to do this work, but you can now get access to Washington Post podcasts ad free and Apple Podcasts. Subscribe in Apple Podcasts or by following the link in our show notes. I'm Elahei Izadi. We'll be back tomorrow with more stories from the Washington Post.

[Sarah Ellison]

Foreign.

[Washington Post Premium Subscription Advertiser]

Good journalism is even better when it's shared. With a premium subscription to the Washington Post, you get three extra accounts to share with friends and family so they can stay informed, too. Right now, you can get a premium subscription to the post for $6 every four weeks. Just $6 unlocks trusted reporting to share with other people in your life. After your first six months, it'll cost $19 every four weeks. You can cancel anytime. Head over to washingtonpost.com subscribe and get premium access to the Washington post today. That's washingtonpost.com subscribe. This is the story of the one as an H vac technician, he and his digital multimeter are in high demand. So when a noisy office H Vac turns out to be a failing blower motor, he doesn't break a sweat. With Grainger's easy to use website and product information, he selects the product he needs to keep everything humming right along call 1-800-GRAINGER clickranger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.