MN - Journalist Don Lemon arrested for church protest, Minneapolis, 18 Jan 2026

[Tutter]

How does a Christian pastor square being an ICE officer. I'm trying to picture Jesus beating people up, separating families, calling women the c-word, shooting someone in the back. Can't see it.

ICE officers uphold the federal laws in our country. There is nothing un Christian about upholding the law. Yes, there are bad officers but man didn’t shoot anyone to my knowledge. He wasn’t at the service that was protested. I wonder what would have happened had he been there?

mo

 

[CrimeDawg123]

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press statement:

Federal agents arrested independent journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort on Thursday and Friday, charging them with violating federal law during a protest inside a Minnesota church earlier this month.

Gabe Rottman, vice president of policy for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, made the following statement:

“It’s obviously concerning any time journalists are arrested in connection with their reporting. To our knowledge, it’s unprecedented for the Justice Department to deploy the federal laws it has previously cited in this case against journalistic activity.

“Historically, the limited number of cases that have been brought against a journalist documenting a protest on private property have been handled as trespass cases at the state level. Those charges are almost always dropped, or if the cases go to trial, the journalists typically prevail.”

RCFP statement on arrests of journalists Don Lemon, Georgia Fort

“To our knowledge, it's unprecedented for the Justice Department to deploy the federal laws it has previously cited in this case against journalistic activity.”

www.rcfp.org

 

[keek]

Agreed, he was not the only reporter there covering the event. He also wasn’t the only one arrested. IMO, this is political retribution against Don and the other journalists by this administration. I think the fact that 2 judges refused to sign off on the arrest warrant and that we haven’t heard any actual details from the DOJ speaks to that.

Of course. Let's not forget t's hate of CNN, Don L was an anchor and had his own spot for years there, then abruptly booted due to ..changes. Cnn doing a bit of caving and the spots were NEVER the same. Just as if Caitlyn Collins (sp) was the press person, we have seen t call her NASTTTTY a couple of times for the world to see. She holds her own against the likes of him of course. IMO

 

[Friday Fan]

Did people storm into a place of worship? Like storming into a synagogue or a mosque to disrupt a religious meeting?

Shouldn't journalists take the stance that storming a religious building during a religious meeting is going to cause fear and safety concerns? Would Don Lemon film the storming of a synagogue during a religious meeting?

Journalists are generally not considered part of the "storm". Journalists are observers and they are free to comment. However, they should not facilitate an event. (Sometimes the line is blurry, for instance, opening the door for someone etc)

I have not seen the video, not have followed it. However, there were journalists in the Capitol when it was stormed. If we didn't have journalists at scenes, there often would not be documentation of the event.

 

[otto]

Here’s some of the coverage of the protests.

https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/19/us/video/minnesota-anti-ice-church-ldn-digvid

If we are just discussing Don Lemons arrest, it has more to do with the freedom of the press to view, record and report on details of an event to disseminate information to the public. He was there in official press capacity, I believe he was live streaming the whole thing.

Live streaming the storming of a religious building during a religious meeting means that Don Lemon had advance notice of the intent to interfere with the religious meeting and to violate the FACE Act. If a gang of angry civilians stormed a church, synagogue, mosque, or an abortion clinic, is the person filming the event an innocent bystander or complicit?

The FACE Act prohibits interference with any person who is seeking to exercise first amendment rights of religious freedom at a place of religious worship:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/senate-bill/636

Why should anyone assume that the person with the camera is not a threat?

"A gunman opened fire in a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand, killing 50 people and injuring 50 more. As he did son, he filmed the entire crime and live-streamed it directly to Facebook"

March 2019

Christchurch shootings: Social media races to stop attack footage

Why was a video of the shootings shared on social media and what can be done about the wider threat?

www.bbc.com

 

[Deleted member 117884]

ICE officers uphold the federal laws in our country. There is nothing un Christian about upholding the law. Yes, there are bad officers but man didn’t shoot anyone to my knowledge. He wasn’t at the service that was protested. I wonder what would have happened had he been there?

mo

To provide a source:

Pastor David Easterwood is an ICE field director in St. Paul, but did not appear to be present at the service during the protest.

Feds arrest journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort for filming protest at St. Paul church • Minnesota Reformer

Federal agents arrested independent journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort for covering a protest at Cities Church in St. Paul, where a pastor is also an official with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Lemon, a former CNN anchor and NBC correspondent, was arrested Thursday night as he...

minnesotareformer.com

 

[Summerliz03]

Live streaming the storming of a religious building during a religious meeting means that Don Lemon had advance notice of the intent to interfere with the religious meeting and to violate the FACE Act. If a gang of angry civilians stormed a church, synagogue, mosque, or an abortion clinic, is the person filming the event an innocent bystander or complicit?

The FACE Act prohibits interference with any person who is seeking to exercise first amendment rights of religious freedom at a place of religious worship:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/senate-bill/636

Why should anyone assume that the person with the camera is not a threat?

"A gunman opened fire in a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand, killing 50 people and injuring 50 more. As he did son, he filmed the entire crime and live-streamed it directly to Facebook"

March 2019

Christchurch shootings: Social media races to stop attack footage

Why was a video of the shootings shared on social media and what can be done about the wider threat?

www.bbc.com

I don’t believe we have any actual information regarding the charges against Don at this point or when he found out about the protest. The DOJ hasn’t spoken about his arrest at all or released any information.

 

[otto]

I don’t believe we have any actual information regarding the charges against Don at this point or when he found out about the protest. The DOJ hasn’t spoken about his arrest at all or released any information.

Two options - the man with the camera was coincidentally at a church at the moment it was stormed by protesters, or he planned to be there because he had advance notice. What does Occam's razor tell us?

 

[Deleted member 117884]

Live streaming the storming of a religious building during a religious meeting means that Don Lemon had advance notice of the intent to interfere with the religious meeting and to violate the FACE Act. If a gang of angry civilians stormed a church, synagogue, mosque, or an abortion clinic, is the person filming the event an innocent bystander or complicit?

The FACE Act prohibits interference with any person who is seeking to exercise first amendment rights of religious freedom at a place of religious worship:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/senate-bill/636

Why should anyone assume that the person with the camera is not a threat?

"A gunman opened fire in a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand, killing 50 people and injuring 50 more. As he did son, he filmed the entire crime and live-streamed it directly to Facebook"

March 2019

Christchurch shootings: Social media races to stop attack footage

Why was a video of the shootings shared on social media and what can be done about the wider threat?

www.bbc.com

Do you have a link that shows these protesters stormed in?

How do journalists know when something is happening to cover? It's not a crime for a journalist to know where an event is about to happen. That's their job. They get tips, follow leads, hunt down storiesetc. Surely people don't think journalists wander around and accidently come upon stories they cover. In this case, did LEMON help PLAN as a participant or was he there only to cover it as press? There is a big difference between the two and I don't think we know the answers yet.

A person with a camera is a threat?! Witnesses with a camera? Victims with a camera?

If everyone with a camera is assumed to be a threat, we're all in danger. Literally.

jmo

 

[Deleted member 117884]

Two options - the man with the camera was coincidentally at a church at the moment it was stormed by protesters, or he planned to be there because he had advance notice. What does Occam's razor tell us?

How does any journalist know where to be to cover a story?

 

[CrimeDawg123]

https://bsky.app/profile/joshgerstein.bsky.social%2Fpost%2F3mdnppnfxy22p

 

[Tutter]

MSN

More videos

 

[otto]

Do you have a link that shows these protesters stormed in?

How do journalists know when something is happening to cover? It's not a crime for a journalist to know where an event is about to happen. That's their job. They get tips, follow leads, hunt down storiesetc. Surely people don't think journalists wander around and accidently come upon stories they cover. In this case, did LEMON help PLAN as a participant or was he there only to cover it as press? There is a big difference between the two and I don't think we know the answers yet.

A person with a camera is a threat?! Witnesses with a camera? Victims with a camera?

If everyone with a camera is assumed to be a threat, we're all in danger. Literally.

jmo

I cannot find any video uploaded by Don Lemon of the event where he claims he was a journalist. I have found other videos where journalists are commenting on the event, and where short clips are shown. They are widely available ... but I'm unable to find the journalistic video by Don Lemon.

No one is suggesting that everyone with a camera is a threat. The issue is whether, during the violation of the FACE Act, a person with a camera should be presumed to be non-threatening. The answer is no.

FACE Act:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/senate-bill/636

 

[CrimeDawg123]

Statement from Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Chief of Advocacy Seth Stern:

“The government’s arrests of journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort are naked attacks on freedom of the press. Two federal courts flatly rejected prosecuting Lemon because the evidence for these vindictive and unconstitutional charges was insufficient, and Lemon has every right to document news and inform the public. Instead of accepting that humiliating defeat, the government has now doubled down.

“These arrests, under bogus legal theories for obviously constitutionally protected reporting, are clear warning shots aimed at other journalists. The unmistakable message is that journalists must tread cautiously because the government is looking for any way to target them. Fort’s arrest is meant to instill the same fear in local independent journalists as big names like Lemon.

“The answer to this outrageous attack is not fear or self-censorship. It’s an even stronger commitment to journalism, the truth, and the First Amendment. If the Trump administration thinks it can bully journalists into submission, it is wrong. We’ve recently seen that even in the Trump era, public pressure still can work. It’s time to do it again. News outlets across the political spectrum need to loudly defend Lemon’s and Fort’s rights. Journalists are not making themselves the story, Trump is.”

https://bsky.app/profile/freedom.press%2Fpost%2F3mdnmcadmek2y

 

[keek]

Storming, the word used truthfully as vid has shown us all, heavily armed/dressed and masked, in multiples, dragging out innocent people and terrorizing them in their homes and cars. THAT is storming, Storming is a fearbased word and it does not apply in the ICE dept head's church. Surprise visit is a word, ha. The people in the church, a few, had spoken about this and their main point was that they DID NOT know that side of their PASTOR and dismayed. I'm sure now no one will speak out of fear for their safety. When you are able to talk with people immediately or close to, after such an incident, it's not 'scrubbed' from the news and so on. That's when you get to see the reality of thoughts and feelings freely, from the people involved. IMO

 

[tlcya]

Is this why there were arrests: it is prohibited to interfere with any person who is seeking to exercise first amendment rights of religious freedom at a place of religious worship?

"Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994

Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit: (2) intentionally injuring, intimidating, or interfering with, or attempting to injure, intimidate, or interfere, any person by force, threat of force, or physical obstruction exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship"

https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/senate-bill/636

if DL and other reporters had not covered this incident would we even know about protesters storming a church and interfering with parishioners' rights of religions freedoms to worship?

 

[otto]

if DL and other reporters had not covered this incident would we even know about protesters storming a church and interfering with parishioners' rights of religions freedoms to worship?

Is there any reason to believe that the people whose religious worship was disrupted in violation of the FACE Act would not report the incident to police? Is there any reason to believe that the violation of the FACE Act is not news unless one of the people at the protest held a camera?

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

If he is not a member of the church, but entered the church with a camera to film worshippers and thus interfere with the first amendment rights of the people in the church, is that a form of intimidation? It sounds like he was there to disagree and expose, not to respect and worship.

He is media. Media is allowed to be where there is news. If he did not participate, the law protects him, regardless of whether or not he was in a church.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Did people storm into a place of worship? Like storming into a synagogue or a mosque to disrupt a religious meeting?

Shouldn't journalists take the stance that storming a religious building during a religious meeting is going to cause fear and safety concerns? Would Don Lemon film the storming of a synagogue during a religious meeting?

Yes, actually, he likely would. We take freedom of the press very seriously in America. It is a constitutionally protected right. As long the press isn't protesting, they are allowed to go anywhere that is open to the pubic and there is a public protest. It is constitutionally protected.

MOO.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

Or an abortion clinic?

Many journalists have filmed protests around Planned Parenthood.

MOO.