The recent federal<\/span> raid on the home of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson isn\u2019t merely an attack by the Trump administration on the free press. It\u2019s also a warning to anyone with a smartphone.<\/p>\n Included in the search and seizure warrant for the raid on Natanson\u2019s home is a section titled \u201cBiometric Unlock<\/a>,\u201d which explicitly authorized law enforcement personnel to obtain Natanson\u2019s phone and both hold the device in front of her face and to forcibly use her fingers to unlock it. In other words, a judge gave the FBI permission to attempt to bypass biometrics: the convenient shortcuts that let you unlock your phone by scanning your fingerprint or face.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n It is not clear if Natanson used biometric authentication on her devices, or if the law enforcement personnel attempted to use her face or fingers to unlock her devices. Natanson and the Washington Post did not respond to multiple requests for comment. The FBI declined to comment.<\/p>\n Natanson has not been charged with a crime. Investigators searched her home in connection with alleged communication between her and government contractor Aurelio Luis Perez-Lugones, who was initially<\/a> charged with unlawfully retaining national defense information. Prosecutors recently added new charges<\/a> including multiple counts of transmission of defense information to an unauthorized person. Attorneys for Perez-Lugones did not comment.<\/p>\n The warrant included a few stipulations limiting law enforcement personnel. Investigators were not authorized to ask Natanson details about what kind of biometric authentication she may have used on her devices. For instance, the warrant explicitly stated they could not ask Natanson which specific finger she uses for biometrics, if any. Although if Natanson were to voluntarily provide any such information, that would be allowed, according to the warrant.<\/p>\n Andrew Crocker, surveillance litigation director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told The Intercept that while the EFF has \u201cseen warrants that authorize police to compel individuals to unlock their devices using biometrics in the past,\u201d the caveat mandating that the subject of the search cannot be asked for specifics about their biometric setup is likely influenced by recent case law. \u201cLast year the D.C. Circuit held<\/a> that biometric unlocking can be a form of \u2018testimony\u2019 that is protected by the 5th Amendment,\u201d Crocker said. This is especially the case when a person is \u201cforced to demonstrate which finger unlocks the device.\u201d<\/p>\n Crocker said that he \u201cwould like to see courts treat biometric locks as equivalent to password protection from a constitutional standpoint. Your constitutional right against self-incrimination should not be dependent on technical convenience or lack thereof.\u201d<\/p>\n Activists and journalists have long been cautioned to disable biometrics in specific situations where they might face heightened risk of losing control of their phones<\/a>, say when attending a protest<\/a> or crossing a border<\/a>. Martin Shelton, deputy director of digital security at Freedom of the Press Foundation, advised \u201cjournalists to disable biometrics when they expect to be in a situation where they expect a possible search.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/theintercept.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Picture1_252394.jpg?fit=936%2C626\")