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

[SilentHill]

That’s one of the most absurd reasons I’ve seen for a protest. Being employed by ICE isn’t a crime. <modsnip> imo

It's not strange to me with all the current problems with ICE. <modsnip: Quoted post was snipped> IMO.

 

[tricia]

I don't think his name should be used at all. It is clear he is being targeted for harassment.

His name is all over mainstream media. His name has never been private since this came out.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

It's not strange to me with all the current problems with ICE. <modsnip> IMO.

Let’s just take a look at who has been arrested. imo

 

[tricia]

I haven't been able to spend a lot of time here for ages. I keep meaning to ask if there's an updated list of approved sources. I was a bit surprised that Jimmy Kimmel is. Thanks!

Jimmy Kimmel is not an approved source but he had Don Lemon on who talked the whole time about what happened. That is the only reason why I posted Kimmel because of the interview topic.

 

[PrairieWind]

His name is all over mainstream media. His name has never been private since this came out.

I understand that. But he is still a private person and now that his church has been attacked, (a federally prosecuted crime) seeking to embarrass him, is he not also now a victim?

 

[Sillybilly]

I understand that. But he is still a private person and now that his church has been attacked, (a federally prosecuted crime) seeking to embarrass him, is he not also now a victim?

Easterwood is a very public figure who has stood beside Noem and discussed the fact that he is field manager for ICE for the states of Minnesota, North and South Dakota, Iowa and Nebraska.

(starting about 11:41)

 

[PrairieWind]

Easterwood is a very public figure who has stood beside Noem and discussed the fact that he is field manager for ICE for the states of Minnesota, North and South Dakota, Iowa and Nebraska.

(starting about 11:41)

He is also a private citizen. He and his family and church are now victims of a crime. Are they not also entitled to that definition?

 

[Ontario Mom]

DBM

 

[CrimeDawg123]

Ian Austin released from jail

https://www.phillyburbs.com/story/news/local/2026/02/03/montco-veteran-freed-from-jail-after-minnesota-ice-protest-at-church-ian-austin/88490528007/

 

[Rolypolyoly]

I understand that. But he is still a private person and now that his church has been attacked, (a federally prosecuted crime) seeking to embarrass him, is he not also now a victim?

Embarrass him how? Suddenly working for ICE is something he should be embarrassed about?!

 

[Rolypolyoly]

He is also a private citizen. He and his family and church are now victims of a crime. Are they not also entitled to that definition?

How is he a victim? He wasnt there!

 

[303gmf]

Embarrass him how? Suddenly working for ICE is something he should be embarrassed about?!

Very!

 

[Sillybilly]

He is also a private citizen. He and his family and church are now victims of a crime. Are they not also entitled to that definition?

We are all private citizens but if we are also public servants who speak publicly and are the subject of a protest by citizens, where is the expectation of privacy?

A protest organizer has stated that the reason for the protest was to shed light on the fact the pastor is an agent for ICE. Given that information and the fact that he is a public figure, why are people so averse to discussing what is perceived by members of the public to be a major conflict of interest?

(IMO, it's pretty Ironic that under the current administration the law was changed to allow ICE agents to enter the sanctity of a church to apprehend individuals they consider being in the country illegally. I wonder how many of those people attend the Cities Church.)

 

[branmuffin]

In my opinion, shock and trauma style communication, to inform a church congregation about a member of their church, should not be condoned. That is the story that should have been told by the independent journalist. That is a message that everyone can understand.

Although people are upset with federal officer methods in upholding immigration law, there are lines that should not and cannot be crossed under any circumstances. Anger due to federal immigration officer actions does not justify traumatizing children in a church.

~ in my opinion ~​

When is traumatizing children valid?

 

[Ontario Mom]

He is also a private citizen. He and his family and church are now victims of a crime. Are they not also entitled to that definition?

We are all private citizens but if we are also public servants who speak publicly and are the subject of a protest by citizens, where is the expectation of privacy?

A protest organizer has stated that the reason for the protest was to shed light on the fact the pastor is an agent for ICE. Given that information and the fact that he is a public figure, why are people so averse to discussing what is perceived by members of the public to be a major conflict of interest?

(IMO, it's pretty Ironic that under the current administration the law was changed to allow ICE agents to enter the sanctity of a church to apprehend individuals they consider being in the country illegally. I wonder how many of those people attend the Cities Church.)

Both the affidavit FBI affidavit in suport of arrest warrant | PDF | U.S. Immigration And Customs Enforcement | American Government and the indictment Read the DOJ indictment of Don Lemon and other journalists, activists make it very clear that the church members and specifically the pastor in question who is literally called "Victim #1" are the legal victims in this case. The charges in the indictment wouldn't even exist, without victims.

So just to be clear, IS this pastor considered a victim here and afforded the same respect as any other victim?

 

[Rolypolyoly]

Very!

Yes indeed, to me and you. Others not so much, until it suits!

 

[PrairieWind]

We are all private citizens but if we are also public servants who speak publicly and are the subject of a protest by citizens, where is the expectation of privacy?

A protest organizer has stated that the reason for the protest was to shed light on the fact the pastor is an agent for ICE. Given that information and the fact that he is a public figure, why are people so averse to discussing what is perceived by members of the public to be a major conflict of interest?

(IMO, it's pretty Ironic that under the current administration the law was changed to allow ICE agents to enter the sanctity of a church to apprehend individuals they consider being in the country illegally. I wonder how many of those people attend the Cities Church.)

But the attack from the protest didnt go to ICE, but to his church and affected innocent people. The "protest organizer" is now charged with federal crimes, which I believe will result in conviction. The Church is a victim, the pastors are victims. The Protest Organizer chose to not go after the target in his ICE capacity, but in his personal, and religious capacity.

 

[PrairieWind]

We are all private citizens but if we are also public servants who speak publicly and are the subject of a protest by citizens, where is the expectation of privacy?

A protest organizer has stated that the reason for the protest was to shed light on the fact the pastor is an agent for ICE. Given that information and the fact that he is a public figure, why are people so averse to discussing what is perceived by members of the public to be a major conflict of interest?

(IMO, it's pretty Ironic that under the current administration the law was changed to allow ICE agents to enter the sanctity of a church to apprehend individuals they consider being in the country illegally. I wonder how many of those people attend the Cities Church.)

Are you posting here as a poster or administrator? And are you going to shut me down because we disagree?

 

[branmuffin]

He is also a private citizen. He and his family and church are now victims of a crime. Are they not also entitled to that definition?

He's a private citizen with a publicly paid position. He's no different than any other public person with a private life. In essence, he has two public personas; one as a government agent whose salary is paid for by taxpayers. The second position is also a public figure whose salary is paid for by the local congregation. It's not paid by the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). So I presume Easterwood's salary can ebb and flow depending on outside events like Covid, recessions, and size of the congregation, etc. It may also be affected by how his flock perceive his deception. Now if I was in his flock, I'd be a bit pissed off because he's double dipping. He's getting health care benefits through his federal job and he's also getting it from his congregation. His pastor salary, his benefits, his retirement plan, his residence is all paid for by his congregation.

Pastors’ pay rebounds in Southern Baptist churches | Baptist Press

BRENTWOOD, Tenn. (BP) – After a difficult economic stretch for many churches and pastors, Southern Baptist pastors may feel more comfortable compared to two years ago.

www.baptistpress.com

The SBC does not pay their pastors because of their autonomous structure. Kind of every pastor for himself, if you will.

Southern Baptist Convention - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Rolypolyoly]

But the attack from the protest didnt go to ICE, but to his church and affected innocent people. The "protest organizer" is now charged with federal crimes, which I believe will result in conviction. The Church is a victim, the pastors are victims. The Protest Organizer chose to not go after the target in his ICE capacity, but in his personal, and religious capacity.

The people in the church on the day of the protest are the victims (of the protest, not of the journalists covering the protest). They are the people who had their right to worship interfered with, not everyone associated with the church. IMO