Journalists are supposed to bear witness, not hand out coffee and donuts to the very activists who storm a house of worship. Federal agents arrested Don Lemon on January 30, 2026, alleging his role went beyond reporting and into coordinating actions that disrupted a service at Cities Church in St. Paul — charges that carry serious civil rights and FACE Act implications.
Video of the incident shows Lemon live?streaming the buildup, joining activists in a parking lot and, according to multiple reports, even distributing coffee and donuts to protesters before they entered the church. Those images undercut the convenient narrative from elite media that he was merely a neutral observer, and they raise urgent questions about when journalism tips into activism.
The Justice Department has framed the case as more than a political dust?up; prosecutors point to evidence they say shows a coordinated effort to impede worshippers’ rights and to intimidate a church that happens to be led by an ICE official. If the allegations are proven, they would fall under statutes meant to protect Americans’ religious liberty and public safety — laws every administration, conservative or liberal, should enforce.
At the same time, a federal magistrate judge initially rejected the DOJ’s first bid to charge Lemon, a decision that only intensified the politicized headlines and helped fuel rushes to judgment on both sides. That back?and?forth highlights the legal fine line here: the First Amendment protects reporting and protest, but it does not give activists or celebrity journalists a license to harass congregations or obstruct a house of worship.
Minnesota has been a tinderbox of anti?ICE passion, and even uniformed public servants have been filmed handing out snacks to demonstrators — a spectacle that should alarm anyone who cares about equal application of the law. Footage of the Minnesota National Guard distributing coffee and donuts to anti?ICE protesters only amplifies the sense that authorities are too eager to side with agitators rather than defend ordinary citizens’ right to worship in peace.
Conservative readers should not be fooled by sanctimonious defenses of Lemon from coastal elites who routinely blur the line between reporting and activism. This is about more than one personality; it’s about a media culture that rewards performative outrage, then cries censorship when the law finally asks tough questions about whether boundaries were crossed.
Americans who value faith, order, and equal protection under the law deserve clearer answers and fair but firm enforcement. The country can have a robust free press and vigorous protest without allowing celebrity journalists to act as foot soldiers for disruptive campaigns inside churches and other sanctified spaces. The DOJ and the courts must sort the facts and apply the law, and the rest of us should demand nothing less than impartial justice and respect for religious liberty.
