Imagine sitting in church on a Sunday morning. Your children are downstairs in Sunday school. Without warning, 30 strangers flood the aisles, shouting, blocking exits, surrounding the pastor. You try to reach your children. Protesters block your path. Parents panic. A congregant breaks her arm while fleeing what she thought was a mass shooting.
This happened on January 18, 2026, at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. Don Lemon was there. He filmed it. He promoted it. And now he faces federal charges for conspiracy against rights and violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.
Defenders call this an attack on press freedom, an authoritarian assault on the First Amendment. They’re wrong. Lemon didn’t report a crime. He committed one. The evidence proves it.
What Happened Inside Cities Church
The protest targeted Pastor David Easterwood, who serves as acting field director for ICE’s St. Paul office. Organized under the banner “Operation Pull-up,” 30-40 protesters entered the church during worship without permission. They chanted “ICE out,” flooded the sanctuary, surrounded Easterwood, and refused to leave when asked.
Lemon livestreamed it all. He stood near the main door, blocking congregants trying to leave. He confronted people. He surrounded the pastor with the group. Throughout the disruption, he urged viewers to “like and subscribe,” to “support independent journalism,” to visit his website. He thanked the organizers afterward.
This wasn’t reporting. This was participation.
The Evidence Against Lemon
A federal grand jury indicted Lemon and eight others on January 30, 2026, on two counts: conspiracy against rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241 and violating the FACE Act under 18 U.S.C. § 248. The evidence is damning.
Lemon’s own livestream convicts him. Before entering the church, he mentions the target—“church”—then adjusts his microphone to avoid revealing details. This shows prior knowledge and coordination.
The conspiracy charge under § 241 requires an agreement to interfere with constitutional rights and overt acts in furtherance. Lemon had both. The pre-event coordination, the physical obstruction, surrounding the pastor—these are overt acts proving agreement.
The FACE Act criminalizes physical obstruction that interferes with religious exercise at a place of worship. One person was injured. The service was shut down. That’s a FACE Act violation.
The Laws Are Not Novel
Defenders claim these statutes are obscure, rarely enforced, weaponized against journalists. False.
Section 241—often called the “Ku Klux Klan Act”—has been used routinely in modern prosecutions. The Justice Department charged January 6 defendants under § 241 for conspiring to obstruct Congress. It’s been used in voting rights cases, hate crime cases, civil rights interference cases. It protects constitutional rights from conspiracy to deprive them. Interfering with free exercise of religion qualifies. Nothing novel here.
The FACE Act has been enforced aggressively—against pro-life protesters. In recent years, the Justice Department has prosecuted peaceful demonstrators for praying outside abortion clinics, for blocking entrances, for staging sit-ins. These protesters didn’t storm facilities. They didn’t injure anyone. They didn’t terrorize families. Yet they faced FACE Act charges, convictions, prison time.
If the FACE Act applies to peaceful pro-life prayer vigils, it applies here. The only difference is the target—and the defenders’ politics.
Critics claiming this prosecution is unprecedented expose their hypocrisy. Where were the press freedom advocates when pro-life demonstrators faced FACE Act charges for kneeling in prayer? Where were the First Amendment absolutists when January 6 defendants went to prison under § 241?
They were silent. Or cheering.
The Journalism Defense Fails
Defenders argue that Lemon was reporting, not protesting. They claim charging him chills press freedom, criminalizes newsgathering, sets a dangerous precedent.
Wrong on the facts. Wrong on the law.
The First Amendment protects speech, publication, assembly. It does not immunize criminal conduct. Journalists can’t trespass, obstruct, conspire to deprive others of constitutional rights, then claim “just documenting” as a shield.
Courts have rejected this defense repeatedly. In *Food Lion v. ABC* (1999), reporters used deception to gain access to private property for a story. They lost. The court held that newsgathering doesn’t excuse fraud or trespass. Journalists have no special exemption from generally applicable laws.
Steve Baker learned this the hard way. A journalist covering January 6, Baker entered the Capitol. He claimed he was documenting events, not participating. The Justice Department charged him anyway. In November 2024, he pleaded guilty to four misdemeanor counts, knowing the evidence would convict him at trial. His journalism defense failed. President Trump later pardoned him in January 2025, but the legal principle stands: calling yourself a journalist doesn’t grant immunity.
Lemon’s case is stronger for prosecution than Baker’s. Baker didn’t coordinate with rioters beforehand. Lemon’s livestream shows pre-planning—he mentioned the church, adjusted his mic to hide details, arrived with the group. Baker didn’t block exits or confront people leaving. Lemon did. Baker didn’t surround Mike Pence. Lemon surrounded the pastor.
If Baker’s journalism defense failed for passive presence on January 6, Lemon’s fails for active participation in obstructing worship.
The Selective Outrage
The defenders rushing to Lemon’s aid have short memories.
In 2013, the Obama Justice Department secretly seized two months of phone records from the Associated Press—over 20 telephone lines. No notice. No subpoena. AP President Gary Pruitt called it a “massive and unprecedented intrusion.” The outrage lasted a news cycle.
Obama prosecuted eight people under the Espionage Act for leaking to journalists—more than all previous administrations combined. James Risen fought a subpoena for years, risking prison. James Rosen was labeled a criminal co-conspirator. Sharyl Attkisson’s devices were infiltrated while she reported on Fast and Furious.
Under Biden, the FBI raided James O’Keefe’s home for allegedly possessing information that would embarrass him.
The press freedom coalition stayed quiet.
Now a Republican administration charges someone who obstructed worship and terrorized families, and they scream tyranny. This isn’t about press freedom. It’s about whose ox is gored.
Defenders of Lemon dehumanize the victims. They ignore the terror, dismiss the blocked parents, erase the injury and fear.
The free exercise of religion matters. Parents reaching their children matters. The right to worship without mobs storming the sanctuary matters.
Lemon and his co-defendants violated those rights. They planned it. They executed it. They filmed it. Now they face consequences. If journalism becomes a shield for criminal conduct, press freedom dies.
Don Lemon crossed the line. The video proves it. The victims suffered. The law applies. This isn’t authoritarian overreach. This is accountability.
The case is not difficult. Lemon committed crimes. He should answer for them. And defenders who claim otherwise should explain why terrorizing families at worship deserves protection while praying outside abortion clinics deserves prison.
They won’t. Because they can’t.