Don Lemon ARRESTED — Federal Conspiracy Charges

The Trump administration’s arrest of former CNN journalist Don Lemon on federal charges stemming from his coverage of a Minnesota church protest has ignited a firestorm over whether constitutional press freedoms are being weaponized against administration critics.

Story Snapshot

Federal agents arrested Don Lemon in Los Angeles on conspiracy and FACE Act charges related to his coverage of a St. Paul church protest against ICE raids
Two federal judges previously denied DOJ arrest warrants citing insufficient probable cause before prosecutors bypassed them with a grand jury indictment
Prosecutors claim Lemon acted as a co-conspirator rather than a journalist by live-streaming coordination meetings and physically obstructing church exits
First Amendment attorneys warn the charges could establish dangerous precedent for criminalizing on-the-ground protest journalism

Federal Charges Target Journalist’s Protest Coverage

Don Lemon, now an independent journalist operating a YouTube channel after his CNN departure, faces federal conspiracy charges and violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act following his January 2026 coverage of protests at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. Federal prosecutors allege Lemon participated in a group of 20-40 protesters who disrupted religious services while confronting a pastor reportedly employed by ICE during the Trump administration’s expanded immigration enforcement operations. The 12-page indictment accuses Lemon of live-streaming pre-operation meetings, urging secrecy among participants, and physically obstructing congregants attempting to exit the church, characterizing these actions as conspiracy rather than protected journalism.

Judicial Roadblocks Preceded Controversial Arrest

The DOJ’s path to Lemon’s arrest reveals a troubling pattern of judicial circumvention that raises serious questions about prosecutorial overreach. A federal magistrate judge in Minnesota initially approved charges against only three individuals on January 22, 2026, explicitly denying warrants for Lemon and others due to insufficient evidence of probable cause. When prosecutors petitioned a federal appeals court for warrants, that request was also denied. Rather than accepting these judicial determinations, the DOJ proceeded directly to a grand jury indictment, enabling federal agents to arrest Lemon in Beverly Hills while he covered the Grammy Awards. Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz publicly criticized the DOJ’s warrant circumvention in letters to the appeals court, adding judicial credibility to defense claims of politically motivated prosecution.

Blurred Lines Between Journalism and Activism

The prosecution’s case hinges on portraying Lemon’s actions as crossing the line from neutral observer to active participant in disrupting constitutionally protected religious exercise. According to the indictment, Lemon live-streamed coordination meetings where participants discussed operational plans and maintained secrecy about their intentions. Prosecutors point to his physical presence inside the church and alleged obstruction of congregants as evidence of conspiracy to deprive rights under color of law. This framing directly challenges traditional journalism protections by suggesting that covering protest planning and being present during demonstrations constitutes criminal participation. First Amendment attorney Jean-Paul Jassy noted the charges raise serious concerns if the church was public space and Lemon was performing journalistic functions, particularly given the prior judicial findings of insufficient probable cause.

Constitutional Concerns Mount Among Legal Experts

Media attorneys and civil rights organizations uniformly condemn the charges as an unprecedented assault on press freedoms that threatens to chill coverage of politically sensitive protests. Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., a prominent media attorney, characterized the arrest as a “dark and dangerous day for the First Amendment and democracy.” Katie Townsend, former counsel for the Reporters Committee, noted the irony of prosecutors invoking First Amendment interference statutes to charge a journalist for documenting protests against government immigration policies. The Legal Defense Fund’s Todd A. Cox called for immediate reversal of the prosecutions and restraint on DHS funding, while the Constitutional Accountability Center labeled the action part of the administration’s broader war on press criticism. These expert assessments gain credibility from the multiple judicial rejections of probable cause that preceded the indictment.

Pattern Emerges of Press Intimidation

Lemon’s arrest forms part of a disturbing pattern targeting journalists covering controversial Trump administration policies. Federal agents simultaneously arrested journalist Georgia Fort for her coverage of the same protest, while the FBI raided Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson’s residence and the Pentagon implemented sweeping information restrictions. Attorney General Pam Bondi publicly vowed to pursue FACE Act violators who disrupt worship services, with the White House Deputy Chief of Staff announcing Lemon’s indictment via social media accompanied by a chains emoji. Defense attorney Abbe Lowell characterized the prosecution as an “unprecedented attack on the First Amendment” designed to distract from unverified defense claims that federal agents killed two peaceful protesters during the broader immigration enforcement operations. Whether courts will accept the prosecution’s theory that journalists can be charged as co-conspirators for covering protest coordination could fundamentally reshape press protections for covering civil unrest.