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

[Ontario Mom]

I do wonder if the Church had its own video of the service. I see that the Pastor had a microphone, which could have just been to project his voice to the back of the church, but maybe they were videotaping the service. A lot of churches are doing that now, and especially since the covid days. Senior members of the church and others can't always make it to the Sunday service. In any event, if they do have a video, it may have been played before the grand jury as evidence and the prosecution has it as evidence. We will have to wait and see as the trial proceeds. Unless, of course, Lemon negotiates a plea deal. But unless the other defendants do that as well, there will be a trial or trials and we'll see all the evidence against the defendants then.

They do video record their sermons. Sermons | Cities Church I believe the commotion began just before he was about to begin the sermon. Which ironically was on loving one another.

 

[Summerliz03]

Have ALL participants in the protest been charged?

This was from Jan 22nd, they had arrested 3 participants in the protest at that point. I know 1 other journalist and 3 other people were arrested with Don Lemon yesterday. I don’t know if we know exactly how many people participated in the protest.

https://www.npr.org/2026/01/22/g-s1-106899/minnesota-church-protest-arrests-pam-bondi-don-lemon

 

[waldojabba]

Have ALL participants in the protest been charged?

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/01/30/journalists-don-lemon-and-georgia-fort-arrested-after-filming-minnesota-church-protest

"Former CNN anchor Don Lemon and Twin Cities-area independent journalist Georgia Fort were charged with conspiracy and interfering with the First Amendment rights of worshipers in connection with his coverage of an anti-immigration enforcement protest at Cities Church on Jan. 18. A total of nine people were indicted."

The aticle explains who everyone arrested is.

Do 9 people equal all the participants - my opinion only is NO.

Maybe someone else has a better answer -
JMO

 

[marloweclover]

I have read the indictment several times. I'm still not convinced. I could be convinced upon additional video showing active participation in protest acts as distinguished from common journalistic acts.

Imo being told that an event will happen, and going to the place where it is supposed to occur, and then filming it is not the same thing as being an active participant in the event.

As far as the portions of the indictment that deal with the interview scenarios, those are imo a large legal stretch. Reporters approach and ask questions. They often get physically close to their subjects, especially in chaotic scenes. The questions do not have to be welcomed by the subject.

 

[otto]

There is no debating that Don Lemon is a professional journalist. Tricia actually posted a really good post about this. This man has worked for decades making a living on reporting the news, hired and credentialed by CNN. He is a professional journalist. So we can debate the others who coin themselves independent journalists, but when someone has the education, training, and credentials, he's a journalist.

IMO, that isn't the question in Lemon's case. The only question in Lemon's case is was he acting as a journalist or a participant and IMO, it's very clear from the evidence thus far, he was acting as a journalist.

MOO.

Lemon was a professional journalist until 2023. Since then, he created a youtube channel where he publishes independent journalism.

In my opinion, the difference between a professional journalist and independent journalist is similar to other professions. When no longer employed in the profession, then professional ethics and standards are voluntary.

That is not to suggest that Mr Lemon did not continue to adhere to professional journalism ethics and standards, only that he could no longer be held accountable to a governing body for violating those ethics and standards.

Would a professional journalist know that entering a church with a camera/ microphone (and a group of loud disruptive people) during a religious meeting could be interpreted as violating the FACT Act? Would a professional journalist take a chance and do it anyway?

"Mr. Lemon now works as an independent journalist and has his own YouTube show."

Don Lemon Released Without Bond Over Minnesota Church Protest

Nine people have been accused of violating federal law during the demonstration at a church this month, reviving a case that was rejected last week by a magistrate judge.

www.nytimes.com

 

[tricia]

@Emerald1328 I agree, it is frustrating when people come into a thread late and haven’t read everything. I don’t think that means we don’t have to provide links again if someone asks, or link to our original post where we did provide that link. I am going to alert my post to a mod and maybe they can clarify.​

Thank you for the alert, Emerald. I’m happy to clear this up.

Our rule is simple: if a member politely asks you to provide a link to support a statement of fact, you’re expected to do so—even if that link has already appeared earlier in the thread. Threads can be long or several days old, and not everyone will remember or be able to find a previously posted source.

That said, common sense applies. You do not need to provide a link for widely known, repeatedly discussed facts that are central to the case. For example, you don’t need to link every time you mention that ICE is operating in Minnesota or that protests occurred. The same applies to well-established facts in other cases, such as JJ and Tylee being found in Chad Daybell’s backyard.

Please keep these two points in mind:

1. If a member politely asks for a link, you are expected to provide one.
2. If you state a well-known, commonly discussed fact, a link is not required.

I hope that clears things up. If you need additional help, you can text me at 435-647-6896 or email [email protected], and I’ll get back to you as soon as I can.

Thanks,
Tricia
PS Please DO NOT discuss moderation on a thread. Email me or text me.
PPS. I just had a heart attack. I thought I accidentally posted my ex-husband's phone number. OMG now I'm awake. LOL

 

[MrsWatson]

Is the North America Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention a "white supremacy" church?

"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.”

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

This appears to be the website the church that was targeted by protesters:

https://www.namb.net/https://www.namb.net/

If they aren't condemning and unaffiliating a church with a white nationalist stance, they must be just fine with it. But that's moo, you'd have to ask them to defend their beliefs.

 

[otto]

What is the definition of "interfere" or "intimidate"? It's subjective here.

Yes, the protesters did this. They intentionally did this. There are some protesters who are willing to break laws to get their point across.

But is a journalist asking questions of the congregants after the protesters did the "interfering" and "intimidation" also "interfering" or "intimidating"? Should Don Lemon not have entered the church?

It certainly is not a crime for a journalist or a TV show to be at a "crime scene". I can't imagine TV w/o it...(LOL)

Journalists asks these questions all the time and yes, it's annoying, and sometimes people complain that it feels intimidating but it's not illegal. Everyone has the right not to speak to the press.


I don't think this case will stick.

It is US legislation. I'll take the words at face value. If the words were meant to be ambiguous, wouldn't that exception be explained?

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

 

[Emerald1328]

Thank you for the alert, Emerald. I’m happy to clear this up.

Our rule is simple: if a member politely asks you to provide a link to support a statement of fact, you’re expected to do so—even if that link has already appeared earlier in the thread. Threads can be long or several days old, and not everyone will remember or be able to find a previously posted source.

That said, common sense applies. You do not need to provide a link for widely known, repeatedly discussed facts that are central to the case. For example, you don’t need to link every time you mention that ICE is operating in Minnesota or that protests occurred. The same applies to well-established facts in other cases, such as JJ and Tylee being found in Chad Daybell’s backyard.

Please keep these two points in mind:

1. If a member politely asks for a link, you are expected to provide one.
2. If you state a well-known, commonly discussed fact, a link is not required.

I hope that clears things up. If you need additional help, you can text me at 435-647-6896 or email [email protected], and I’ll get back to you as soon as I can.

Thanks,
Tricia
PS Please DO NOT discuss moderation on a thread. Email me or text me.
PPS. I just had a heart attack. I thought I accidentally posted my ex-husband's phone number. OMG now I'm awake. LOL

Thank you so much for the clarification!

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Regarding the FACE Act, Trump of course pardoned 23 people convicted under the law for interfering with access to abortion clinics.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/23/trump-pardons-abortion-clinic-protesters-00200292

The DOJ also said they would no longer prosecute any FACE Act violations except for severe cases.

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/09/g-s1-52616/abortion-face-act-access-enforcement

Instead, the Justice Department now says it will no longer enforce violations of the statute, except in extraordinary circumstances — such as cases involving death or serious property damage.

I haven't heard that there was any serious damage nor any deaths during this protest. As if consistency or integrity matters with this ridiculous, weaponized DOJ where prosecutions are for political purposes foremost. moo

 

[otto]

Have ALL participants in the protest been charged?

No idea. My focus is Don Lemon.

 

[Summerliz03]

Regarding the FACE Act, Trump of course pardoned 23 people convicted under the law for interfering with access to abortion clinics.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/23/trump-pardons-abortion-clinic-protesters-00200292

The DOJ also said they would no longer prosecute any FACE Act violations except for severe cases.

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/09/g-s1-52616/abortion-face-act-access-enforcement

Instead, the Justice Department now says it will no longer enforce violations of the statute, except in extraordinary circumstances — such as cases involving death or serious property damage.

I haven't heard that there was any serious damage nor any deaths during this protest. As if consistency or integrity matters with this ridiculous, weaponized DOJ where prosecutions are for political purposes foremost. moo

Well there you go. I would like to say I’m shocked, but that would be a lie. Political retribution at its finest. IMO.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

I used an example to make a point. But if we want to be more concrete, if every journalist is covering the protestors on the street, some journalist IS going to find another angle and in this case, that other angle was the church.

The point is, this is how journalists operate. This is nothing new.

MOO.

Credible journalists don’t go on recon missions with the group that is preparing to break the law by entering a Church to harass and intimidate the congregation. imo

Speaking on camera from a snowy parking lot in the Twin Cities, Lemon said he had done some “reconnaissance” with activist groups ahead of the storming of Cities Church.

Video proves Don Lemon was embedded with anti-ICE agitators before they stormed church — despite claiming ‘no affiliations’

Speaking on camera from a snowy parking lot in the Twin Cities, Lemon said he had done some “reconnaissance” with activist groups ahead of the storming of Cities Church.

nypost.com

 

[tlcya]

Pretty much what Lemon said on his livestream while he was inside the church badgering pastor Parnell.
Except he was also on camera long before it happened, talking to protestors and telling his live audience "something" was about to happen, and he was being careful not to give away locations, details, etc.

All of this is documented in the 12 page indictment located here Read the DOJ indictment of Don Lemon and other journalists, activists

thank you for sharing the indictment. I think the federal prosecution may have difficulty proving DL physically intimidated, threatened, or trapped anyone by blocking their exit. JMO. I also keep in mind that allegations are just that, until proven in a court of law.

But I do find DL's foreknowledge AND his obvious and stated intent in keeping the group's mission secret so they could take parishioners by surprise troubling and agree his own words and actions would seem to prove he did in fact do just that. I think that may not be at all hard to prove, he makes the case for that himself, without assistance from prosecutors.

I am most curious why two defendants named in the indictment have been redacted. I wonder why that is.

 

[marloweclover]

It is US legislation. I'll take the words at face value. If the words were meant to be ambiguous, wouldn't that exception be explained?

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

Imo, the nature of language is inherently ambiguous to some extent. Also imo, many of the landmark cases in American legal history have been concerned with interpretation of the language of the statute. For a recent example, Moore v. United States (2024) required the Court to interpret the meaning of the word "income."

Brief on Moore v. US

 

[Inthedetails]

Is the North America Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention a "white supremacy" church?

"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.”

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

This appears to be the website the church that was targeted by protesters:

https://www.namb.net/https://www.namb.net/

Here's what fellow Bapists have to say about that congregation (posted already on the thread but I know sometimes repeating things is useful to the conversation), bbm:

How a church bearing the name of Jesus promotes the themes of resentment, nativism, nationalism, racism and militarism is a mystery.

Cities Church isn't being persecuted for righteousness – Baptist News Global

MAGA churches are not being persecuted for righteousness but for not loving their neighbors, Rodney Kennedy says.

baptistnews.com

It's a very interesting article, imo.

 

[Friday Fan]

It is US legislation. I'll take the words at face value. If the words were meant to be ambiguous, wouldn't that exception be explained?

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

I asked what is "interfering"? Is it interferring, if someone asks congregants questions after the service was interferred

The church service was already interfered with. Is asking people questions (exercising ones first amendment right) after a church was interferred the same thing?

BTW this administration has lost many court cases because their cases are flawed.

 

[otto]

Based on the indictment, Mr. Lemon at no time states that he is an independent journalist.

He met with protest organizers for a pre-op briefing. He said he was gearing up for a resistance operation against the federal government. He could see crying children and stated that the purpose was to "disrupt". He was asked to leave and did not immediately leave.

p.4

p.5-6

p.8-9

p.10

Don Lemon indictment

www.documentcloud.org

 

[Sundog]

thank you for sharing the indictment. I think the federal prosecution may have difficulty proving DL physically intimidated, threatened, or trapped anyone by blocking their exit. JMO.

<Snipped for focus>

It may be that there will be witnesses from the church service who will be testifying to these allegations, including the pastor and church members. If the grand jury indicted DL on the evidence presented, it may be that witness testimonies were included. I guess we will see at trial.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Regarding the FACE Act, Trump of course pardoned 23 people convicted under the law for interfering with access to abortion clinics.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/23/trump-pardons-abortion-clinic-protesters-00200292

The DOJ also said they would no longer prosecute any FACE Act violations except for severe cases.

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/09/g-s1-52616/abortion-face-act-access-enforcement

Instead, the Justice Department now says it will no longer enforce violations of the statute, except in extraordinary circumstances — such as cases involving death or serious property damage.

I haven't heard that there was any serious damage nor any deaths during this protest. As if consistency or integrity matters with this ridiculous, weaponized DOJ where prosecutions are for political purposes foremost. moo

I'll add that there are at least some anti-abortion activists who remain consistent against the use of the law.

What is the FACE Act, an obscure law used to prosecute Don Lemon?

The Trump administration has reinterpreted the law, historically used to prosecute anti-abortion-rights activists who block reproductive health clinics.

www.ms.now

Several of the anti-abortion-rights activists who Trump pardoned told MS NOW that they also oppose the administration’s use of the law against Lemon and the protesters in Minneapolis.

“Defenders of life and free speech should reject any weaponization of the FACE Act, whether it’s used against our allies or our perceived enemies,” Herb Geraghty, 29, told MS NOW on Friday. “The federal government should have no role in hyper-criminalizing speech-based activity.”

“If Republicans think now they can use it, the stupid thing will never get repealed,” said Jonathan Darnel, 44, earlier this month.