Staff Reports
The recent arrest and federal indictment of former CNN anchor Don Lemon over his presence at a disruptive anti‑ICE protest inside Cities Church in St. Paul has exposed a raw truth about media entitlement and political theater in our streets. Federal agents took Lemon into custody in Los Angeles on January 29 after prosecutors pursued charges tied to the January 18 incident, and his case has become a flashpoint for debates about press privilege and accountability.
According to the charges unsealed by prosecutors, a grand jury returned a two‑count indictment accusing Lemon of conspiracy against religious freedom and interfering with the exercise of religious rights under federal statutes after the protest disrupted worship. The federal case centers on allegations that demonstrators entered the church and impeded congregants, and prosecutors say Lemon’s role went beyond mere reporting.
Lemon appeared in federal court and pleaded not guilty at his arraignment in Minnesota on February 13, asserting that he was acting as a journalist, while the court released him without a cash bond. His lawyers vow to challenge the charges as protected speech, but the indictment makes clear the Justice Department is treating the matter as far more than a local scuffle over immigration.
Adding to his legal peril, a Minnesota congregant has filed a civil suit alleging severe emotional distress and the unlawful interference with the free exercise of religion during the January service, seeking damages for the disruption. That civil claim underscores the real victims in this story: ordinary worshippers who came to church in peace and were forced to endure a political mob.
Meanwhile, the gatekeepers of information behaved exactly as conservatives warned they would — large news apps and left‑leaning outlets downplayed or scrubbed headlines about a grand jury indictment while framing the story through a sympathetic lens. Media Research Center researchers documented that major news apps largely promoted narratives that softened or obscured the fact of the indictment, revealing the protective bubble around favorite pundits.
It is also worth noting that a federal magistrate initially declined to sign off on a proposed complaint at an early stage, a development that only inflamed partisan responses and calls from some corners to treat the matter as either a political persecution or a nonstory. That split between judicial caution and prosecutorial persistence should alarm anyone who cares about equal justice under the law.
Hardworking Americans should not be forced to choose between protecting religious congregations and defending a free press; the rule of law must apply to everyone, including high‑profile journalists who decide to take part in political stunts. If the courts find wrongdoing, there must be accountability; if the charges fail, then the journalism community will have learned a costly lesson about picking sides from the pulpit.
This episode is a test of whether our institutions will treat powerful media figures the same way they treat everyone else, and whether churches will remain sanctuaries free from political performativity. Patriots who value faith, order, and an honest press should demand full transparency, equal enforcement, and no more special treatment for those who think their cameras grant them immunity.
