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

[Cryptic]

Well? Is there any evidence Lemon infringed on amendment rights?

MOO

To me, yes. Maybe not to you.

 

[witchway]

There were 2 police cars parked outside but no tickets or arrests were made that day.

The fact that 2 magistrates said no to signing an arrest warrant for Don Lemon and Georgia Fort speaks volumes. jmo

 

[iamshadow21]

<modsnip> ...most of these kids are probably sitting in half empty classrooms right now, because kids they know and are friends with are either hiding from or have been gooned by ICE, and there is no way they don't know that. Kids are aware of and talk about adult things, because they have absolutely no choice about living in a world where adult issues impact them.

MOP

 

[witchway]

I saw one or two in the very beginng, prob that day by a reporter, the woman said she had no idea about the church pastor being an ice member. Started me wondering what exactly was that particular church about. IMO

I believe that was the point of the protest, it was stated to inform others who they had as a pastor. jmo because I don’t have supporting facts at the moment.

 

[Summerliz03]

I believe that was the point of the protest, it was stated to inform others who they had as a pastor. jmo because I don’t have supporting facts at the moment.

I said this above, a few posts back, but Nekima Armstrong herself gives the reason during her interview with Chris Cuomo. Let me link to my post.

S

Post in thread 'MN - Journalist Don Lemon arrested for church protest, Minneapolis, 18 Jan 2026'

Yesterday at 9:10 PM

My understanding is that the protest and story were focused on a member of the church who is also a federal agent. That is given by the organizers as the reason that they focused on the church. They believed that a federal agent was at the church.

As soon as they realized that the man at the centre of the journalistic story; the man who is both a church member and federal agent, was not in the church, they should have left. They no longer had any reason to pursue the journalistic story or the protest.

There was no one to interview inside or outside the church related to the protest...

• Summerliz03

• 

And I’m editing to link to Ms Armstrongs interview on Youtube where she clearly gives her reasons for protesting that specific church and what their message is.

 

[Cryptic]

I can't decide if I think of the Church as private like a mall? Or private like my living room?

My total guess is that <modsnip> Churches are.... private like your back yard.

To that effect, you can boot people unwelcome people fast and don't need give explanation. You have an expectation of privacy....even if you don't have 'Keep Out' signs posted, and have not formally asked ask people to leave. Likewise, you can instaneously change your entry policy sans the need to give a justification.

 

[branmuffin]

Is one of the questions: when someone posts on social media that they intend to violate federal law, such as the FACE Act (or any other law), should journalists rush to the scene to film the violation of law? Should journalists interview the persons whose rights have been violated to ask how it feels?

Is that journalism, or voyeurism?

When a journalist records an historic event, even if no one realizes it's historic at the time, there's no rule against it. There is no aspect of the FACE Act that prohibits the filming of events in a place of worship.
(1) the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person who is obtaining an abortion,
(2) the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person who is exercising or trying to exercise their First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship,
(3) the intentional damage or destruction of a reproductive health care facility or a place of worship.

I'm not sure why you keep repeating the same thing. What did Don Lemon do that was illegal? Knowing ahead of time that a protest was going to take place doesn't mean that it was DL's responsibility to advise the church. Being aware of an event prior to its happening is what's called a source for a credible story if you're a journalist. It's not DL's responsibility to advise LE that a protest was going to take place. The last thing a journalist wants to do is destroy a credible source. Now, if it was something like blowing up a business or building then I presume that most journalists would tip off LE to avoid loss of life.

Precedent was set with the arrest of independent journalists who were chronicling the events of January 6th at the Capitol. I think it was about 8 independent journalists who were arrested and charged and some sent to prison and some negotiated a plea deal, IIRC. Also, no journalists defended their right to chronicle the events and practice journalism during these events. So it seems that these journalism associations have a clear double standard for when they speak out against this and when they don't. I don't think any of us are surprised, sadly.

Those 'independent journalists' you speak about weren't journalists which is why their defense of chronicling the events tanked. They were part of the event and their chronicling of the events were to boost traffic on their bosses' podcasts and websites like Infowars and Alex Jones. Both of whom were aware of the events that were to come.

Being in the wrong place at the right time can be similar to being in the right place at the wrong time. Many times, that has to do with the political climate. So right now, DL is a journalist who was in the right place at the wrong time, the wrong time, being the Trump regime, a criminal organization whose sole reason is to enrich themselves while suppressing the undesirables, as according to Project 2025.

Don Lemon has been known as a journalist for years, his bona fides go back for decades. He even won the Edward R Murrow award for chronicling the DC snipers back in 2002. So comparing him to those criminals in Washington DC on Jan 6 2021 is laughable.

Some Jan. 6 defendants try to use journalism as riot defense

It's unlikely that any of the self-proclaimed journalists can mount a viable defense on the First Amendment's free speech grounds, experts say.

ny1.com

 

[Summerliz03]

When a journalist records an historic event, even if no one realizes it's historic at the time, there's no rule against it. There is no aspect of the FACE Act that prohibits the filming of events in a place of worship.
(1) the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person who is obtaining an abortion,
(2) the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person who is exercising or trying to exercise their First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship,
(3) the intentional damage or destruction of a reproductive health care facility or a place of worship.

I'm not sure why you keep repeating the same thing. What did Don Lemon do that was illegal? Knowing ahead of time that a protest was going to take place doesn't mean that it was DL's responsibility to advise the church. Being aware of an event prior to its happening is what's called a source for a credible story if you're a journalist. It's not DL's responsibility to advise LE that a protest was going to take place. The last thing a journalist wants to do is destroy a credible source. Now, if it was something like blowing up a business or building then I presume that most journalists would tip off LE to avoid loss of life.

Those 'independent journalists' you speak about weren't journalists which is why their defense of chronicling the events tanked. They were part of the event and their chronicling of the events were to boost traffic on their bosses' podcasts and websites like Infowars and Alex Jones. Both of whom were aware of the events that were to come.

Being in the wrong place at the right time can be similar to being in the right place at the wrong time. Many times, that has to do with the political climate. So right now, DL is a journalist who was in the right place at the wrong time, the wrong time, being the Trump regime, a criminal organization whose sole reason is to enrich themselves while suppressing the undesirables, as according to Project 2025.

Don Lemon has been known as a journalist for years, his bona fides go back for decades. He even won the Edward R Murrow award for chronicling the DC snipers back in 2002. So comparing him to those criminals in Washington DC on Jan 6 2021 is laughable.

I wish I could like this 500 times!! Everything you said is spot on. Bravo!

 

[branmuffin]

<snipped for focus>

Exactly, and the independent journalists that documented the events at the Capitol incident were arrested and charged with crimes and some of them were given prison sentences.

They weren't journalists. They were people sent by the likes of InfoWars and Alex Jones websites to provide the red meat for their rabid followers. That's why they were arrested. I mean, the Infowars guy wore a Make America Great Again. Not exactly low key, right?

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

These two new arrests likely correspond to the names that were redacted in the indictment.

In a tweet on Monday, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced Ian Davis Austin and Jerome Deangelo Richardson had been arrested for the demonstration at Cities Church on Sunday, Jan. 18.

Both Austin and Richardson were named along with seven other defendants – including attorney Nekima Levy-Armstrong, journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort, and St. Paul school board member Chauntyll Louisa Allen – in an indictment handed up last Friday by a grand jury.

St. Paul church protest: 2 more arrests made in MN

Federal authorities have arrested two men for their roles in the anti-ICE protest last month at a St. Paul Church. Here's what we know.

www.fox13seattle.com

 

[AppleTreeGreen]

My understanding is that the protest and story were focused on a member of the church who is also a federal agent. That is given by the organizers as the reason that they focused on the church. They believed that a federal agent was at the church.

As soon as they realized that the man at the centre of the journalistic story; the man who is both a church member and federal agent, was not in the church, they should have left. They no longer had any reason to pursue the journalistic story or the protest.

There was no one to interview inside or outside the church related to the protest or the independent journalist's story.

How does law apply when there was essentially no reason for the protest, and no reason for an independent journalist to attend? They made a mistake. They miscalculated. No one at the church had anything to do with detaining illegal immigrants.

~ in my opinion ~​

IIRC Armstrong wanted both the pastor and the church members to be the focus of the protest. In other words, the protest wasn’t just about the Field Office Director. As a pastor herself, she mentioned that one goal of hers was to inform about the abuses ICE agents committed under Easterwood’s leadership in MN and how, in her opinion, his work like breaking families apart and and defending ICE agent Jonathan Ross, who shot and killed Renee Good, and those who target school children and invade people’s homes are antithetical to the teachings of God and his church needs to be called out. It does not appear that Easterwood being being there or not would deviate their plans all that much when, according to MPR news, she aimed to make church goers expereince the same level of discomfort as their brown and black migrant neighbors are currently in an ICE-invades MN.

As for the perspective of the journalists, the church members have just as much insight as the protestors to offer on immigration in MN, the impact of the influx ICE operations in MN and how the shooting and killing of Renee Good and the subsequent protests affected them and their neighborhoods. Nonetheless, it was the protest that brought the journalist to church in the first place and Even if Easterwood was the reason for it it, they would have realized he wasn’t even attending the service only after Group A made it to the front of the congregation and the protest had already started, as shown by the affidavit. IMO, not much would change as journalists would likely still want to report and make a record of their observations as the two communities before them came into conflict and issues unfolded.

As for the law, it would still apply as the First Amendment still protects religious freedoms and parishioners are inhibited from being threatened, having their movements physically restricted or restricted by use of force and from being physically obstructed from entering and exiting places of worship by others, according to the FACE Act. These laws are still upheld at the place of worship whether or not protesters and journalists lost their reasons or purpose for being at that locale or even in the case they actually had none at all.

JMO/MOO

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/01/19/protesters-interrupt-service-at-cities-church-in-st-paul-claiming-pastor-works-for-ice

Protesters Disrupt Southern Baptist Church of Pastor Who Leads ICE Office in Minnesota

On Sunday, an unplanned liturgy of “ICE out!” and “Justice for Renee Good!” erupted in the sanctuary of a Southern Baptist church in St. Paul, Minnesota.

publicwitness.wordandway.org

Opinion | ICE wants to be the only ones who can disrupt worship

Rev. Angela Denker: The protesters inside that St. Paul church were right.

www.ms.now

Protest at St. Paul church ignites cries of religious persecution – Baptist News Global

In a year of political divisiveness, a Sunday protest at a Southern Baptist Church in St. Paul, Minn., has drawn a new line in the sand.

baptistnews.com

 

[Sillybilly]

This post lands at random.

Please pay attention to some points from Tricia's post earlier today:

" ... the church is not the topic of this thread.

The topic is the arrest of journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort, and whether those arrests were legitimate.

[...]

We know why the protesters were protesting. Because of the pastor's job with ICE.

Going forward, please keep the discussion focused on the arrests of the journalists. Unless there is a truly legitimate reason to bring the church's beliefs into it, let’s stay on topic."

 

[tricia]

Don Lemon on Jimmy Kimmel

 

[Hexe]

Regarding the independent journalist, after he realized that the target of the protest was not in the church, why didn't he leave? What was the story about if he was not there to interview the man who works as a federal agent?

The story about the protest in the church. In said church there were the parishioners of the pastor in question, interviewing them would be interesting for any journo worth their salt.

MOO ,

 

[Hexe]

To me, yes. Maybe not to you.

What is this evidence? Where in any footage we can see Don actually disrupting the service?

 

[SouthAussie]

Don Lemon on Jimmy Kimmel

That is interesting to watch. When Don heard the rhetoric against him heating up, prior to the arrest, he contacted his lawyer. His lawyer contacted the authorities offering for Don to turn himself in, if he was going to be arrested. No reply.

Don thinks they wanted to make his arrest a high-profile thing. Although he didn't realise how high-profile it was until his lawyer prepared a statement for him and said he needed to address all of the journalists waiting for him to be released.

Don was not allowed a phone call. IIRC he was told he would have to wait until court the next day.
His husband found out because Don asked an FBI agent to please take his diamond bracelet to his husband, who was sleeping at the hotel. The agent was decent and did so.

 

[SouthAussie]

National Press Club statement.
Founded in 1908, the National Press Club is the world’s leading professional organization for journalists.


“The National Press Club is deeply alarmed by the arrest of journalist Don Lemon by federal agents Thursday night in Los Angeles while he was covering the Grammy Awards.

Jailing a journalist for doing their job is dangerous — not only for press freedom, but for the public’s right to know. When reporters risk arrest for documenting events of public interest, the result is fewer witnesses, less accountability, and a more uninformed public ...........

................ Journalism is not a crime. Arresting or detaining journalists for covering protests, public events, or government actions represents a grave threat to press freedom and risks chilling reporting nationwide.

The world is watching closely, and the implications of this case extend far beyond any one reporter.

The National Press Club will continue to monitor this matter closely as more information becomes available.”

National Press Club Statement on Arrest of Journalist Don Lemon

National Press Club President Mark Schoeff, Jr. today issued the following statement: “The National Press Club is deeply alarmed by the arrest of journalist Don Lemon by federal agents Thursday nig…

sdvoice.info

 

[SouthAussie]

Don Lemon said about a dozen federal agents came to his Los Angeles hotel to arrest him last week, even though his attorney had told authorities he would turn himself in to face federal civil rights charges over his coverage of an anti-immigration enforcement protest that disrupted a service at a Minnesota church.

Lemon asked to see a warrant and was told they didn't have it. The agents then summoned an FBI agent to come in from outside to show Lemon the warrant on a cell phone.

Kimmel introduced Lemon, his first guest of the night, by saying he was “was arrested for committing journalism.”

Don Lemon says a dozen agents were sent to arrest him even though he offered to turn himself in

Don Lemon says that about a dozen federal agents came to his Los Angeles hotel to arrest him last week. The independent journalist told ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel that's

www.ottumwacourier.com

 

[SouthAussie]

Kimmel began the interview asking Lemon how he was feeling, and the former CNN anchor said: “I don’t know — that’s an honest answer,” before adding, “I’m OK, I’m not going to let them steal my joy, but this is very serious. These are federal criminal charges.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2026/02/03/don-lemon-addresses-doj-arrest-on-kimmel-they-want-to-intimidateinstill-fear/

 

[Ruminations]

Don Lemon on Jimmy Kimmel

Wow. Everywhere I have worked, I have been asked to work smarter. Do I really need this much staff? This much paper? This many laptops? Why is each person expensing mileage, instead of carpooling?

I had a sister work in a Walmart, taking deliveries, and she had to buy her own box cutters, FFS. And she and her peers had to share rare handheld devices to scan items into inventory. They had to be very assertive to avoid working before clocking in or after clocking out.

Yet, somehow the federal government has the resources to visit several judges, convene a grand jury, then send out half a dozen feds at midnight to arrest a man who had already offered to turn himself in voluntarily during business hours.

I am paying for this with my tax dollars!

If the arrest were legitimate, I'd be outraged. But it is not. Not legitimate because the first ones arrested were journalists, rather than the loudest or those most culpable of interruptions or disruptions. Journalists follow the story. If the protesters stayed in a parking lot, so would have the journalists.

So I am more outraged. This anti-journalism arrest was anti-American and anti free speech from the start. And it was very expensive while the federal deficit spins to the stratosphere.

I do not believe for a second Pam Bondi or anyone thinks these charges will stick against Don Lemon. There is too much evidence that he was not disruptive, and the church let him in. People who were disruptive may have some minor convictions. Good trouble, as they say. But charges against Lemon won't stick. He will have to spend a great deal of time and money to get cleared.

Pam Bondi et al don't even need the charges to stick. They got their arrest b rolls. They got to sanctimoniously announce that freedom of worship will be protected. (As if that is going to distract me from the fact the citizens' rights to be on their own sidewalks or cars without getting killed has been taken away.) Pam Bondi is hoping people think, well, if he got arrested, he must have done something wrong. And thus, even though the charges won't stick, she has achieved her goal.

MOO