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

[Ruminations]

Personally I think Don Lemon was set up by somebody in the group. And it went high up. Because somebody knew that protesting in a church was a big deal. Whereas most people don't really get that. They probably don't understand why protesting in a church is a bigger deal, legally, than say protesting in like a store or a restaurant.

Because it's interesting that somebody led the group right there, right during the service, right when Don was there. Right to a federal charge. I don't think it's coincidental. Especially after we knew Don was on the political radar and they were looking for a way to silence journalists like they do it in Russia. Someone who well studied the US laws came up with this plot.

So yeah I think it's highly likely Don got set up to face serious charges. Watching him interviewing there, it's clear he didn't know, because he was like, Hey we're just exercising our first amendment right here. He didn't seem worried about it at all. So he clearly didn't realize that it was violating a federal law.

But actually it should not violate a federal law, because the federal law writes that you have to use force. Apparently the law has not been used that way in practice and has been overstretched. But I think Don can get out of it with a good attorney.

I don't know if I'd go to "set-up."

I do imagine the protesters welcomed the coverage and additional documentation in case violence was used against them.

Protesters less provocative than them had already been killed with multiple gunshot wounds, and this protest was predictably edgy. How long are people going to accept random killings on their streets?

That is one of the many, many things ICE is doing wrong. They are basically saying, "You protest peacefully, I will kill you." Some people will decide to go home. Some will just protest peacefully harder, more and in greater numbers. Others will say, "Perhaps we need to be a bit more disruptive, then." This can be a trap, because it gives ICE an excuse for their violence.

(It is a bad, unacceptable excuse, btw. If someone is disruptive, trespassing, blocking traffic, there are laws and consequences. It is NOT okay for ICE to resort to extrajudicial violence.)

If any protesters were breaking laws, there might be and should be consequences. I do think it is possible the protesters crossed some legal lines, although I find going to FACE act for a majority religion that has used its parishioners to harass women getting medical care, thus creating a need for it, a tad ironic. More than a tad ironic. Richly ironic.

But, if laws were broken, sometimes it's the right thing to break laws and face consequences. It's not okay to just accept secret, masked Gestapo to randomly grab people, demand papers, arrest people who are documented immigrants or citizens which shows no regard for the stated mission of agency, kidnap children, kill protesters randomly. Maybe it's worth it to get arrested for disruption if it helps stop ICE abuses.

And journalists are journalists. Lemon is a journalist, and his documents help everybody. Even the people considering citations against protesters.

MOO

Edit the tense. lol, don't think Don Lemon or his husband would appreciate my killing him off by using the past tense. He IS a journalist, not was one.

 

[Inthedetails]

Personally I think Don Lemon was set up by somebody in the group. And it went high up. Because somebody knew that protesting in a church was a big deal. Whereas most people don't really get that. They probably don't understand why protesting in a church is a bigger deal, legally, than say protesting in like a store or a restaurant.

snipped

Completely disagree, with respect.

The people protesting were not yokels and they knew what they were doing. They are informed people.

I think they were knowingly making "good trouble" and were willing to risk legal trouble for the greater good of getting the message out - not to the congregation, but to the public about ICE leadership.

And I think Lemon and the other journalists were there to cover the story because they are journalists who want to cover interesting and important stories.

The story has turned into the issue of interrupting worship instead of ICE leadership, unfortunately for them. I think their message missed the mark.

It's also about 1A and DOJ overreach, but I expect the case to be tossed out, fwiw.

jmopinion

ETA: I think the case against the journalists will be tossed, while the charges against protesters will proceed.

 

[CSIDreamer]

I got distracted by the Nancy Guthrie case, apologies for the delayed response.

So in your opinion there are legitimate news stories that are, for reasons of good taste, simply not truly coverable? A story from across the street, with only secondhand delayed sources, is less valuable and debatably real imo than one that is entirely on scene. I don't think I am cut out for it myself, but I appreciate those who are willing to go to those places and do those uncomfortable things. Without those people, we would miss a lot -- or be force fed a lot of someone's agenda, imo.

(I got distracted, too)

IMO, good taste and integrity are 2 different things.

 

[shotgun09]

BREAKING: AAG Harmeet Dhillon Reveals DOJ Investigating As Many as “40 People” in Minnesota Church “Attack.”

https://twitter.com/x/status/2019259766065828330

 

[Rolypolyoly]

I agree that it had to be terrifying for Fort's children. I personally wish that on no child. But, I wonder where the thoughts of terrifying children was when Ms Fort was allegedly in a church, participating and encouraging terrifying young children ( amongst others ) herself? Pot meet kettle, so they say. IMO

We have been told by the organiser of the protest that DL, GF and even many of the actual protestors didnt have any knowledge of what they were planning to do beyond that they would be protesting. They didnt know in advance that they would be entering a church and disrupting the worship, and with that said I dont believe either journalist went there knowing that children would be traumatised.
They didnt personally protest or scare children. They documented others doing so.
I think the pot's conscience is clear.

Exactly. Black lives matter and racialjusticeMN plus an independent reporter (all linked upthread) who held unverified beliefs about a church congregation went to their church to inform the congregation that a member of their church is a federal officer. Rather than hand out pamplets, or speak to the congregation after their religious meeting, they disrupted the meeting and traumatized families and children.

I hope no one responds to imply that this was justified because of something that federal officers do.

These were families with children at church on Sunday morning. No one in the church had anything to do with federal officers.

The protesters were absolutely in the wrong for traumatising children, the ones that said terrible things about their parents going to hell should be ashamed of themselves. Anyone who weaponises children should be ashamed of themselves.

Two wrongs dont make a right!.

I personally dont agree with protesting inside a church, legal or not, and I am an atheist.

I don't believe DL or GF were part of the protesting, and the wrongful arrest is what I am intesting in discussing.

I won't justify the protesters behaviour. They should have stayed out on the street, and even on the street they should not direct their words at children.

All JMO.

 

[otto]

<respectfully snipped by me>
But actually it should not violate a federal law, because the federal law writes that you have to use force. Apparently the law has not been used that way in practice and has been overstretched. But I think Don can get out of it with a good attorney.

The federal law does not require use of force:

"FACE 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

 

[shotgun09]

We have been told by the organiser of the protest that DL, GF and even many of the actual protestors didnt have any knowledge of what they were planning to do beyond that they would be protesting. They didnt know in advance that they would be entering a church and disrupting the worship, and with that said I dont believe either journalist went there knowing that children would be traumatised.
They didnt personally protest or scare children. They documented others doing so.
I think the pot's conscience is clear.



The protesters were absolutely in the wrong for traumatising children, the ones that said terrible things about their parents going to hell should be ashamed of themselves. Anyone who weaponises children should be ashamed of themselves.

Two wrongs dont make a right!.

I personally dont agree with protesting inside a church, legal or not, and I am an atheist.

I don't believe DL or GF were part of the protesting, and the wrongful arrest is what I am intesting in discussing.

I won't justify the protesters behaviour. They should have stayed out on the street, and even on the street they should not direct their words at children.

All JMO.

I agree with much of what you stated. It appears to me that everyone that entered the Cities Church that day was 'duped' into believing that it was the right thing to do. The leader, or the 'Organizer' may have led them all to believe that this was legit, and legal and righteous protesting. She (who wears three hats) of the activist, lawyer and minister IMO greatly influenced the rest of the protesters, including Lemon and the other journalist that day. (Possibly re-assuring them that it was not breaking any laws? ) But, it sadly doesn't give them all a pass. They broke the law, IMO. Their purpose was to "disrupt", stated out loud...on a live stream. Hiding under the hat of " I'm a journalist", or being just a joe blow protester with the excuse of " I didn't KNOW it was illegal " doesn't excuse it. They all entered the church and participated, in one way or another....and chaotically disrupted the hundreds of peaceful, praying people in that church. All IMHO

 

[otto]

snipped

Completely disagree, with respect.

The people protesting were not yokels and they knew what they were doing. They are informed people.

I think they were knowingly making "good trouble" and were willing to risk legal trouble for the greater good of getting the message out - not to the congregation, but to the public about ICE leadership.

And I think Lemon and the other journalists were there to cover the story because they are journalists who want to cover interesting and important stories.

The story has turned into the issue of interrupting worship instead of ICE leadership, unfortunately for them. I think their message missed the mark.

It's also about 1A and DOJ overreach, but I expect the case to be tossed out, fwiw.

jmopinion

ETA: I think the case against the journalists will be tossed, while the charges against protesters will proceed.

The question is: what is the story?

The organizer of the protest stated that her intent was to communicate and inform the congregation that a member of their church is a federal officer. The independent journalist was in the city for the day to report on this communication.

The member of the church in question was not at the church that day.

The church was filled with families and children attending church on Sunday morning.

The choice of communication style was not email, letter, pamphlet, or verbal communication before or after the religious meeting. The choice of communication was to gather 30-40 people who would enter the church, interrupt and stop the religious meeting, frighten children, make loud noise, cause panic where one woman fleeing the church slipped and broke her arm, confront/obstruct the pastor, and remain in the church for 13 minutes after being asked to leave.

The independent journalist, who has never attended a religious meeting at the church, was at the church to report on the story. That resulted in a youtube video. Follow up interviews included the following:

“I think people who are in religious groups like that — it’s not the type of Christianity that I practice — but I think they’re entitled, and that entitlement comes from white supremacy,” Lemon said of Minnesota’s Cities Church in a jaw-dropping interview."​

Don Lemon blasts Minnesota churchgoers harassed by anti-ICE protesters for ‘entitlement’ and ‘white supremacy’

Don Lemon is doubling down after being caught red-handed conspiring with anti-ICE radicals who raided a Sunday church service in St. Paul, casting blame on the parishioners whom he labeled “e…

nypost.com

To understand the complete story, it is necessary to read the affidavit from witnesses at the church.

FBI affidavit in suport of arrest warrant | PDF | U.S. Immigration And Customs Enforcement | American Government

This affidavit, submitted by Special Agent Timothy Gerber, outlines the investigation into a group of agitators who disrupted a religious service at Cities Church in St. Paul, MN on January 18, 2026. The group, led by Nekima Valdez Levy-Armstrong and Chauntyll Louisa Allen, coordinated their...

www.scribd.com

~ in my opinion ~​

 

[Inthedetails]

The question is: what is the story?

​

snipped

The ideology of ICE leadership, to spread that to the public (not to the congregation). And the message is lost because the disruption of worship service is taking center stage, understandably.

I'll say, again, I am against disrupting any worship service.

jmo

 

[otto]

We have been told by the organiser of the protest that DL, GF and even many of the actual protestors didnt have any knowledge of what they were planning to do beyond that they would be protesting. They didnt know in advance that they would be entering a church and disrupting the worship, and with that said I dont believe either journalist went there knowing that children would be traumatised.
They didnt personally protest or scare children. They documented others doing so.
I think the pot's conscience is clear.

The protesters were absolutely in the wrong for traumatising children, the ones that said terrible things about their parents going to hell should be ashamed of themselves. Anyone who weaponises children should be ashamed of themselves.

Two wrongs dont make a right!.

I personally dont agree with protesting inside a church, legal or not, and I am an atheist.

I don't believe DL or GF were part of the protesting, and the wrongful arrest is what I am intesting in discussing.

I won't justify the protesters behaviour. They should have stayed out on the street, and even on the street they should not direct their words at children.

All JMO.

Does it matter whether protesters had decided to enter the church prior to arriving at the church?

Once they arrived, they had a choice to communicate the message that a federal officer attends the church peacefully after the religious meeting. Everyone had a choice, and they all chose to interrupt a Sunday morning church service attended by families with children.

The intent was to communicate that a member of their church is a federal officer, but I doubt that the message was received. That is, the message was lost due to ineffective communication style.

Journalists should be familiar with the FACE Act, and boundaries governing First Amendment rights with respect to religion and the press. The First Amendment protects the right to practice religion freely, and it ensures the freedom of news media to report without government censorship.

~ in my opinion ~​

 

[Sundog]

The federal law does not require use of force:

"FACE 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

Well the entire group sure tried to use intimidation tactics and clearly interfered with the congregants right to worship in the sanctity of their own church.

 

[otto]

snipped

The ideology of ICE leadership, to spread that to the public (not to the congregation). And the message is lost because the disruption of worship service is taking center stage, understandably.

I'll say, again, I am against disrupting any worship service.

jmo

The church and the congregation have nothing to do with federal immigration law.

There are far better methods to increase awareness of federal government activities than to traumatize children at church on Sunday morning.

Independent journalists have responsibilities when covering a story. They should know that shocking a church congregation is not the best method for communicating. They should know First Amendment press, and FACE Act, limitations. There's is no reason for an independent journalist to follow 40 people into a church as though they are led by the pied piper. All of them had a responsibility to stop and think before they acted.

~ in my opinion ~​

 

[Inthedetails]

The church and the congregation have nothing to do with federal immigration law.

There are far better methods to increase awareness of federal government activities than to traumatize children at church on Sunday morning.

Independent journalists have responsibilities when covering a story. They should know that shocking a church congregation is not the best method for communicating. They should know First Amendment press, and FACE Act, limitations. There's is no reason for an independent journalist to follow 40 people into a church as though they are led by the pied piper. All of them had a responsibility to stop and think before they acted.

~ in my opinion ~​

My role is not to defend the protesters. That's not my interest, either. I'll repeat, again, I don't approve of disrupting a church service.

But I can look at a situation objectively and discuss it, without the need to defend it.

I am not part of that protesting group, but I can try to understand them.

Again, I don't approve of disrupting worship.

jmo

 

[CSIDreamer]

We have been told by the organiser of the protest that DL, GF and even many of the actual protestors didnt have any knowledge of what they were planning to do beyond that they would be protesting. They didnt know in advance that they would be entering a church and disrupting the worship, and with that said I dont believe either journalist went there knowing that children would be traumatised.
They didnt personally protest or scare children. They documented others doing so.
I think the pot's conscience is clear.



The protesters were absolutely in the wrong for traumatising children, the ones that said terrible things about their parents going to hell should be ashamed of themselves. Anyone who weaponises children should be ashamed of themselves.

Two wrongs dont make a right!.

I personally dont agree with protesting inside a church, legal or not, and I am an atheist.

I don't believe DL or GF were part of the protesting, and the wrongful arrest is what I am intesting in discussing.

I won't justify the protesters behaviour. They should have stayed out on the street, and even on the street they should not direct their words at children.

All JMO.

Well, I mean if you say protesters should have stayed outside you should technically say the same thing about Fort and Lemon. But they didn't, and here we all are, getting to know each in a boiling hot thread. JMO

 

[otto]

My role is not to defend the protesters. That's not my interest, either. I'll repeat, again, I don't approve of disrupting a church service.

But I can look at a situation objectively and discuss it, without the need to defend it.

I am not part of that protesting group, but I can try to understand them.

Again, I don't approve of disrupting worship.

jmo

I don't understand why the 40 protesters and an independent journalist did not stop and think about whether what they intended to do was moral, ethical, justified, and legal. I certainly don't understand anyone defending or cheering the decision to cause trauma to children at church during Sunday morning service.

We've heard from the organizer that her intent was to inform the congregation that a member of their church is a federal officer. Presumably, that was understood by protesters and the independent journalist prior to entering the church. Presumably all protesters and the independent journalist knew that children were attending the Sunday morning church service.

I suspect that when it comes First Amendment rights, it will be decided that Press rights (freedom of news media to report without government censorship) did not justify the violation of Religion rights (the right to practice religion freely).

~ in my opinion ~​

 

[Sundog]

Journalists should be familiar with the FACE Act

~ in my opinion ~​

<Snipped for focus>

And even more so, a minister should be familiar with the FACE Act! So did the minister dupe the other protesters?

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

I don't understand why the 40 protesters and an independent journalist did not stop and think about whether what they intended to do was moral, ethical, justified, and legal. I certainly don't understand anyone defending or cheering the decision to cause trauma to children at church during Sunday morning service.

We've heard from the organizer that her intent was to inform the congregation that a member of their church is a federal officer. Presumably, that was understood by protesters and the independent journalist prior to entering the church. Presumably all protesters and the independent journalist knew that children were attending the Sunday morning church service.

I suspect that when it comes First Amendment rights, it will be decided that Press rights (freedom of news media to report without government censorship) did not justify the violation of Religion rights (the right to practice religion freely).

~ in my opinion ~​

There were other ways to inform, if that was their intent, and I’m not convinced it was. They could have used signs in public spaces or even billboards for that matter. Maybe they felt it would open the door to additional issues, such as defamation. imo