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

[BeginnerSleuther]

At my direction, early this morning federal agents arrested Don Lemon, Trahern Jeen Crews, Georgia Fort, and Jamael Lydell Lundy, in connection with the coordinated attack on Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota.More details soon.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2017238803639845115

Waiting for the glorious day in which Pam Bondi is disbarred for using the law to violate Americans' Constitutional rights.

MOO.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

''In an interview with Lemon, a demonstrator described the action as a clandestine operation in which they disrupt “business as usual” at a surprise location. Three demonstrators have already been arrested in connection with the protest on charges of conspiring to interfere with the civil rights of others.''

So when will Bondi be arrested for literally doing the same?

MOO.

 

[tlcya]

Waiting for the glorious day in which Pam Bondi is disbarred for using the law to violate Americans' Constitutional rights.

MOO.

we may be waiting a while, I'll bring snacks for both of us

 

[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.

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

In addition, I believe some of these poor people, in church service, may have been prevented from leaving, if even for a moment. Some of these "protesters" are in hot water. I suspect Don Lemon will be home by supper. I believe he messed up big time here. IMO

You believe they may have been prevented from leaving based on what? Please cite a source for such a serious accusation.

 

[bearfossils]

So when will Bondi be arrested for literally doing the same?

MOO.

“Rights for me but not for thee!”. The Trump administration can violate rights, shut down government funding arbitrarily, and encourage the murder of protesting citizens. But how DARE you question them about it!

 

[tlcya]

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?

I have no reason to believe the disruption would not have been or was not reported to local law enforcement. However, had I not seen national news showing clips of the chaotic scene I and many others would not know it took place and would not have the opportunity to feel disappointed by or outraged by that action being taken by protesters.

I question why DL alone as an independent journalist was singled out among the other press present that day to face charges. Because I suspect it has to do with DL not having a network's legal team behind him. He will have to spend his own money defending this nonsense IMO and that is the point of taking him into custody when local authorities had already declined to prosecute him.

MOO it is very obvious and troubling habit of this administration to charge someone federally when a review by the local authorities has not gone the way our POTUS would like. Sort of like the man's personal ultimate do-over. Didn't get the result I want, I'll just change the playing field to one I own. MOO JMO

 

[BeginnerSleuther]

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

No, it doesn't. Livestreaming is as easy as hitting a button. There is no prep needed. Unless we learn that he conspired to do this, there is no law that he broke that I have seen. Also, it isn't up to a journalist to end a protest. Full stop. They are there only to report. Not there to get involved.

. 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?

If it's a member of the press, they are 100% free and clear. They are NOT complicit. That's how America works.

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'm sorry, but everything you're posting is goes against our Constitution 100%. A camera is NOT a threat when it's held by a member of the press. They have every right to video a protest. This is settled law.

The courts are not going to agree with re-writing the Constitution to excuse this violation. We know that because TWO separate judges (one federal) refused a warrant for Lemon. TWO separate judges decided this was not a legal arrest. Link earlier in the thread.

MOO.

 

[otto]

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.

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. (FACE Act)

That is law. Recording religious meetings is not a right, it is a privilege. Non-members of a religious group cannot wander into religious meetings and interfere with those exercising first amendment rights by recording with intent to publish and expose persons attending that meeting; especially when the intent is to portray with negative or critical context.

 

[otto]

Many journalists have filmed protests around Planned Parenthood.

MOO.

Sure, but not inside the abortion clinic where women are waiting to terminate pregnancy.

 

[otto]

No, it doesn't. Livestreaming is as easy as hitting a button. There is no prep needed. Unless we learn that he conspired to do this, there is no law that he broke that I have seen. Also, it isn't up to a journalist to end a protest. Full stop. They are there only to report. Not there to get involved.



If it's a member of the press, they are 100% free and clear. They are NOT complicit. That's how America works.



I'm sorry, but everything you're posting is goes against our Constitution 100%. A camera is NOT a threat when it's held by a member of the press. They have every right to video a protest. This is settled law.

The courts are not going to agree with re-writing the Constitution to excuse this violation. We know that because TWO separate judges (one federal) refused a warrant for Lemon. TWO separate judges decided this was not a legal arrest. Link earlier in the thread.

MOO.

The question is: why was he there?
It's not a question of whether, once he was there, he should film the protest.

If he had no advance notice of the protest inside the church, what reason did he have for standing in the parking lot prior to the protest to announce the protest (video posted upthread). What led him to that parking lot if he had no advance notice of the protest?

 

[NoClouseau]

So when will Bondi be arrested for literally doing the same?

MOO.

Bolding/emphasis by you ?

 

[Inthedetails]

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?

Occam's razor would tell me that a journalist on the scene was covering the situation as press. What do you think of ANY journalist at ANY event? That they planned it? Is that the first assumption?

Was LEMON, with a long career in broadcast news and media, there as press or as participant?

jmo

 

[tlcya]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2013219366574145723

This Don himself. Probably not approved…

hmmm, this gives me food for thought. I will need to give real thought to whether this changes my opinion. As I said, I did not agree with that crowd overtaking a church at all. I feel it was very wrong of them to do so.

I do still question, if DL was made aware of the group's intentions ahead of time as this seems to strongly suggest, were the other journalists present also? And if so, why are they not facing the same charges?

 

[Tutter]

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

In the msn link to several videos there is one where he says this to a parishioner I assume.

MSN. Click continue reading.


There is also a video clip from Fox News that shows Dom Lemon talking with the pastor in the church. I’m sure not many have seen that one lol.

 

[witchway]

Law Enforcement were parked outside the church. No arrests were made at the time.

Church’s are considered private property, a demonstrator can be dinged for trespassing. If asked and refusing. Churches have first amendment rights.

Also, no one was blocked from leaving. The protestor’s did not “storm” they stood up. They were already in the pews sitting quietly. Their hands were free. Nothing was thrown other than their voices.

I understand they were there to protest the minister that is also the director of ice that is in the Twin Cities. And to make the parishioners aware that was who they had as one of their preachers.

Don Lemon was there and quietly filming away from the actual protest. I watched this live, came across it randomly on that day. He then left and did ask some church goer’s some questions and gave them the opportunity to speak.

He was notified this was going to happen in advance although he said he did not have many details before for what it’s worth.

This is what I watched and remember. so I guess I have to say its from my perspective and opinion.

 

[otto]

Don Lemon's perspective is that he has the right to disruptively enter any religious building during a religious meeting and film participants attending that meeting.

The perspective of the religious organization is that uninvited journalists with a rolling camera of people attending the religious meeting is "lawless harassment."

Whose rights need to be protected? The rights of those attending a religious meeting, or those of journalists seeking to publish their perspective of the religious meeting?

"Protesters interrupted a Sunday church service in St. Paul, Minn.
...

Videos posted on social media show protesters chanting at the Cities Church — including calls for “ICE out” — and bringing the service to a halt. Congregants are seen moving to leave the church as the chants continue and worship music begins to play.
...

Ms. Levy Armstrong, the church protest organizer ... said she circulated her plan for interrupting the [religious] service on social media.
...

Kevin Ezell, president of the North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, to which the church belongs, said in a statement that “what occurred was not protest; it was lawless harassment.”
...

“Once the protest started in the church, we did an act of journalism, which was report on it and talk to the people involved, including the pastor, members of the church and members of the organization,” Mr. Lemon said in a recent video. “That’s it. That’s called journalism.”

Mr. Lemon now works as an independent journalist and has his own YouTube show. He was pushed out of CNN in 2023 after 17 years at the cable network, amid criticism that he made sexist comments about women and aging."

Protest at Minnesota Church Service Adds to Tensions Over ICE Tactics

The Justice Department said it would investigate the protest over a pastor’s apparent role in immigration enforcement in the state.

www.nytimes.com

Federal Agents Arrest Don Lemon Over Minnesota Church Protest

Three others were also arrested on charges that they had violated federal law during the church protest this month, reviving a case that was rejected last week by a magistrate judge.

www.nytimes.com