>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
“I’ll be live on YouTube tomorrow, tune in!” Lemon said.
By Sunday, Lemon was indeed live—but what viewers witnessed shocked many Americans. During his broadcast, a group of aggressive anti-ICE protesters stormed Cities Church in St. Paul in the middle of a worship service. The demonstrators reportedly targeted the church because of claims that the pastor had some form of involvement with ICE, a charge that sparked outrage among activists but terror among families simply trying to worship.
As Lemon filmed, protesters shouted down the pastor, disrupted the service, and intimidated churchgoers. The disruption was so severe that congregants began leaving the sanctuary altogether.
“This is the beginning of what’s going to happen here,” Lemon said as anti-ICE protestors shouted down the pastor and harassed parishioners.
Moments later, Lemon acknowledged the impact of the disruption on those attending the service.
“They’ve stopped the service — a lot of people, a number of people have left,” Lemon said.
Rather than condemning the invasion of a church service, Lemon went a step further—appearing to justify the activists’ behavior. According to Lemon, the aggressive takeover of a place of worship was not only acceptable, but constitutionally protected.
“This is what the First Amendment is about, the freedom to protest,” Don Lemon said. “I’m sure people here don’t like it, but protests are not comfortable.”
WATCH:
That claim immediately drew fierce backlash, particularly from those who argue that the First Amendment does not grant a license to harass religious believers or shut down worship services. Legal experts and faith leaders alike noted that constitutional protections for free speech do not override laws protecting religious freedom and the right to peacefully assemble.
The Department of Justice appears to agree.
Shortly after the video circulated online, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon confirmed that federal authorities are reviewing the incident for potential legal violations. According to Dhillon, the behavior captured on Lemon’s livestream may cross a serious legal line.
“The Civil Rights division is investigating the potential violations of the federal FACE Act by these people desecrating a house of worship and interfering with Christian worshippers,” Harmeet Dhillon said in response to the video.
The FACE Act—commonly associated with protecting access to places of worship and religious expression—carries significant penalties for those found guilty of interference or intimidation. Conservatives argue that the law exists precisely to prevent the kind of mob behavior seen in St. Paul.
Attorney General Pam Bondi also weighed in, confirming that the Justice Department is taking the incident seriously and has launched an investigation into the left-wing activists involved in the church takeover.
For many Americans, the episode highlighted what they see as a dangerous double standard. Peaceful Christians attending church were driven out of their own sanctuary, while a high-profile media figure appeared to excuse—or even endorse—the disruption as a form of “uncomfortable” but acceptable protest.
Critics argue that if the political roles were reversed, the reaction from corporate media and the Left would be swift and unforgiving. Instead, Lemon’s commentary has fueled concerns that radical activism is being normalized—even when it targets religious institutions.
As the DOJ investigation moves forward, the incident raises serious questions about the limits of protest, the protection of religious liberty, and the role of media figures who choose to amplify chaos rather than condemn it. One thing is clear: what happened inside that St. Paul church is no longer just a viral clip—it’s now a federal matter.
