ST. PAUL, Minn. — An unusual confrontation erupted during a worship service at Cities Church last Sunday. Protesters opposed to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) disrupted the gathering, chanting, “ICE out” and targeting a church leader they believed was associated with immigration enforcement. This incident has sparked widespread criticism, federal investigations, and even a response from former President Donald Trump.
The protest occurred on January 18 and was broadcast by former CNN anchor Don Lemon, who entered the church with the demonstrators and captured the unfolding scene. Federal officials, including Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon, condemned the actions. Dhillon emphasized the protection of religious spaces under federal law, stating, “A house of worship is not a public forum for your protest.” Her comments serve as a stark reminder of the legal boundaries surrounding protests in sacred spaces.
The focus of the protesters was David Easterwood, who is affiliated with ICE. Their interference disrupted services at the predominantly Christian congregation led by Pastor Jonathan Parnell. Parnell condemned the protest, labeling it “shameful,” and highlighted the emotional impact on the churchgoers. This situation illustrates a growing tension not just concerning immigration policy, but also about the sanctity of worship and how it intersects with activism.
Lemon defended his actions, framing them as an exercise of free speech. He remarked, “This is what the First Amendment is about, the freedom to protest.” His perspective underscores a contentious view on the balance of rights; while some see protest as a fundamental freedom, others regard it as a violation of sacred spaces. This clash raises questions about the responsibilities of individuals exercising free speech and the context in which they do so.
The protest comes at a time of heightened unrest in the Minneapolis–St. Paul area following the January 7 shooting of activist Renee Good by a federal officer. Good’s death has intensified scrutiny of immigration enforcement practices, particularly toward Latino and Somali communities. The backlash has reportedly led to an increase in threats against ICE agents, suggesting that the environment is becoming increasingly volatile.
Lemon’s livestream captured the disruption, leading to discussions about potential legal repercussions. The Department of Justice is considering charges under the 1994 FACE Act and aspects of the Ku Klux Klan Act, both designed to protect civil liberties and religious freedoms. Dhillon noted, “Whenever people conspire, this, the Klan Act can be used,” stressing the seriousness of the matter. This potential legal action reflects broader concerns over how far protests can go without infringing on others’ rights.
Trump weighed in by reposting a statement suggesting that Lemon could face severe penalties under the FACE Act, branding him a “LOSER” and expressing admiration for the church’s pastor. The tone of Trump’s message illustrates how the situation has escalated into a national debate, inflaming sentiments on both sides. The backlash against Lemon has been furious, with many calling for his prosecution following what some describe as criminal aggression.
Lemon responded to the growing criticism and threats, maintaining that his actions were legitimate journalism. He questions the focus of federal investigations, arguing that resources would be better employed addressing the circumstances surrounding Good’s death rather than scrutinizing his reporting. This remark highlights the divergence in priorities between federal authorities and activist movements, further complicating dialogue on such incidents.
Meanwhile, local officials are also trading accusations. The White House places blame on Democratic leadership in Minnesota for inciting unrest, with a spokesperson asserting that they have fueled chaos. However, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey countered this narrative, framing the protests as a necessary response to federal overreach against marginalized communities. This exchange reflects the political entrenchment around the issue of immigration enforcement and civil rights.
As investigations proceed, the FBI has yet to announce any formal charges, but the Justice Department signals a readiness to act if civil rights violations are confirmed. For the congregation of Cities Church and its leadership, the disruption represents a painful experience. Pastor Jonathan Parnell described the incident as “an affront to the sanctity of worship,” emphasizing the impact on congregants who were visibly shaken.
The Cities Church protest adds a new chapter to ongoing discussions regarding the limits of protest activities, especially when they occur within sacred contexts. At the heart of this debate is Don Lemon, who has become both a target for criticism and a symbol for those championing the right to confront perceived injustices. As the situation unfolds, the upcoming decisions by prosecutors will likely shape future interpretations of free speech and civil liberties during a politically charged climate.
For now, echoes of Dhillon’s warning resonate: “You are on notice.”
"*" indicates required fields
