Don Lemon Arrested by Federal Agents After Disruptive Minnesota Church Protest
First Amendment Clash Erupts
LOS ANGELES, CA – Former CNN anchor and independent journalist Don Lemon was taken into federal custody Thursday night in Los Angeles, in connection with a disruptive protest that entered a St. Paul, Minnesota church during a service on January 18, 2026.
Federal agents, acting on information developed by prosecutors, apprehended Lemon while he was in California covering the Grammy Awards. This stunning development has ignited nationwide debate over protest rights, press freedom, and federal enforcement priorities.
Don Lemon, 60, a former CNN primetime anchor and currently an independent media figure and commentator, is known for his radical leftist ideology and anti-white racist slant in his reporting. After being fired from CNN he started his own podcast which can be seen on YouTube and iHeart.
Abbe Lowell, Lemon’s attorney, confirmed the arrest and provided the account of events to multiple outlets.
Multiple unnamed federal law enforcement sources and government officials are involved in the investigation.
Sources say Lemon was taken into custody under federal authority, though specific criminal charges have not yet been publicly disclosed. Federal agents reportedly acted after a grand jury was empaneled earlier on Thursday, indicating prosecutors are pursuing formal charges tied to the church incident.
The Minnesota protest targeted a pastor allegedly associated with ICE, and demonstrators called for removal of federal immigration enforcement involvement in local communities. The service disruption drew immediate attention from local media and legal authorities, and the federal government opened a civil rights and enforcement inquiry.
At least three other individuals connected to the protest have been arrested in connection with civil rights violations related to disrupting the church service. Authorities have indicated that any action in a place of worship, including entering without permission and interrupting religious activities, can invoke both criminal and civil statutes protecting access to houses of worship.
LEGAL BACKGROUND SO FAR
Earlier in the month, a federal magistrate judge refused to approve charges against Lemon, citing insufficient evidence at that early stage. Prosecutors were reportedly instructed to seek a grand jury indictment instead. Subsequently, that path appears to have succeeded, culminating in the arrest.
At least one federal appellate panel previously declined the Justice Department’s emergency request to authorize an arrest, though one judge acknowledged probable cause existed. This procedural history illustrates the complexity of prosecuting protest-related actions that intersect with press coverage and constitutional protections. The magistrate’s rejection, and subsequent grand jury action, have raised questions about prosecutorial judgment and judicial oversight.
RESPONSES FROM THE PARTIES
Lawyer Abbe Lowell — representing Lemon — publicly denounced the arrest as an “attack on the First Amendment,” asserting Lemon was acting entirely in his capacity as a journalist and that his actions were constitutionally protected reporting. Lowell vowed that Lemon will “fight these charges vigorously and thoroughly in court.”
Lemon himself has consistently maintained he was present to report and document, not to participate, and that he had no organizational role in the demonstration.
Federal authorities have not released official statements on the legal basis for the arrest, and charges remain undisclosed in public filings as of this publication. Prosecutors have linked the church disruption to violations of laws designed to protect the free exercise of religion and civil rights, but official charging documents have not yet been filed in open court.
This arrest marks a rare instance where a national media figure has been taken into custody for coverage of a protest event, particularly one involving the disruption of a religious service. For conservative observers and press freedom advocates alike, the case poses questions about the boundary between journalism and participation in politically charged events, and whether the federal government is setting a precedent for prosecuting media figures covering controversial demonstrations.
Legal scholars note that journalists generally receive broad protection under the First Amendment when documenting events, even if those events turn chaotic or involve other participants committing crimes. The government’s position, as implied by its pursuit of Lemon, suggests prosecutors believe Lemon’s presence and actions may have crossed a legal line — a position his defense vigorously disputes.
Observers expect formal charges to be announced when Lemon next appears in federal court, potentially in Los Angeles. The case is likely to draw intense scrutiny from press freedom groups, civil liberties advocates, and political commentators nationwide.
Opinion and Analysis
The arrest of Don Lemon raises serious questions: Are journalists being held to the same standards as ordinary citizens when they cover protests? The First Amendment is clear — the freedom to gather news is sacred and necessary to hold government accountable. Yet this case demonstrates how federal enforcement can transform neutral reporting into a prosecutorial target when political sensitivities run high.
If Lemon truly was reporting, walking ahead of protestors who later disrupted a service, then the act of documenting events should be protected. The government’s expansion of enforcement into spaces where journalistic documentation occurs threatens to blur the line between witness and participant — a dangerous ambiguity that chills free speech and press freedom.
Conversely, if Lemon participated in the disruption of worship services by providing aid or assistance in any way, he was no longer a reporter, and his press badge would not act as a shield from prosecution. The federal statutes designed to protect religious gatherings are legitimate insofar as they preserve Americans’ rights to worship without intimidation or interference. Enforcement of those statutes should be even-handed, not influenced by political or media status.
Here’s the critical question: Is the DOJ enforcing law impartially, or choosing political targets? That answer will shape the future of American civil liberties. Lemon’s arrest is not just about one man — it is about the fundamental guarantees of free expression and religious liberty in a democratic society.
How Fate registered a developer’s project domain after seeing it in official plans, then fought to keep that fact hidden
FATE, TX – Cities are expected to regulate development, not steal its name.
Records obtained by Pipkins Reports show the City of Fate registered the domain name of a private development, lafayettecrossing.com, while actively working with the developer who had already claimed that name in official plans. The move, made quietly during a heated approval process, raises serious questions about whether Fate’s city government crossed from partner to predator, taking digital ownership of a project it was supposed to oversee with neutrality and good faith… and depriving the developer of their rights to domain ownership.
What followed, attempts to conceal the purchase, shifting explanations from city officials, and a documented pattern of advocacy on behalf of the developer, suggests the domain registration was not an accident, but part of a broader effort to control the narrative around one of the most divisive projects in the city’s history.
A site plan submitted by the developer, D-F Funds GP, LLC, led by Robert Yu, shows the project title “Lafayette Crossing” clearly identified in the title block on December 20, 2023. The document was part of the city’s official development review for the controversial project at the corner of I-30 and Highway 551.
Less than two months later, on February 7, 2024, the City of Fate registered the domain lafayettecrossing.com, Invoice #116953461, for $12.
Domain records confirm the registration date, with the domain set to expire on February 7, 2027. By that point, Lafayette Crossing was already the established name of the project, used by the developer and embedded in official plans circulating within City Hall.
This was not a coincidence. The city had the plans from the developer. Their were extensive talks regarding the project. Then the city registered the domain without the knowledge of the developer. This is known in the industry as, “Cybersquatting.”
The development, originally referred to as the “Yu Tract,” became known as Lafayette Crossing as it moved through the approval process. The project ignited intense public opposition over density, traffic congestion, infrastructure strain, and the long-term direction of Fate’s growth. Despite sustained resistance and packed council chambers, the city council approved the project.
The political fallout was severe. In the elections that followed, four council members and the mayor were replaced, an extraordinary level of turnover that reflected deep voter dissatisfaction. Two members from that Council, Councilman Mark Harper and Councilman Scott Kelley, remain, but are up for reelection this May.
That context matters, because the domain registration did not occur in isolation. It occurred amid a broader, documented pattern of city officials actively working to shape public perception in favor of the developer.
In February 2024, Pipkins Reports, then operating as the Fate Tribune, published an exposé based on internal city emails showing City Manager Michael Kovacs discussing strategies to “educate” the public about Lafayette Crossing. In those emails, Kovacs suggested deploying what he referred to as “Fire Support,” a term used to describe both paid and unpaid advocates brought forward to counter citizen opposition and astroturf public support for the project.
That reporting revealed a city government not merely responding to public concerns, but actively attempting to manage and counter them.
In a later publication, Pipkins Reports (Fate Tribune) documented the City of Fate’s hiring of Ryan Breckenridge of BRK Partners, engaging in what records showed to be a coordinated public relations effort aimed at improving the project’s image and swaying public sentiment. The campaign was presented as informational, but residents viewed it as advocacy on behalf of the developer, funded with public resources.
It was within this environment, where city staff had already aligned themselves publicly and privately with the developer’s interests, that the city registered the lafayettecrossing.com domain. Yet that fact remained hidden until PipkinsReports.com submitted an Open Records Request on September 30, 2025, seeking a list of all domains owned by the city.
Rather than comply, the City of Fate objected. On October 14, 2025, officials asked the Texas Attorney General’s Office for permission to withhold the records, citing “cybersecurity” concerns.
On January 6, 2026, the Attorney General rejected that claim and ordered the information released. The city complied on January 20, 2026.
In addition to the lafayettecrossing.com domain, the records revealed the city owns numerous domains tied to redevelopment and branding initiatives, including:
- FateTX.gov
- DowntownFate.com
- FateFoodHaul.com
- FateMainStreet.com
- FateStationHub.com
- FateStationMarket.com
- FateStationPark.com
- FateStationSpur.com
- OldTownFate.com
- TheHubAtFateStation.com
- TheSpurAtFateStation.com
- ForwardFate.com
Most clearly relate to city-led initiatives. LafayetteCrossing.com stands apart because it mirrors the established name of a private development already proposed, named, and publicly debated.
When questioned via email, Assistant City Manager Steven Downs initially suggested the domain purchase occurred long before his involvement and downplayed any potential issues. When we revealed documents to show Downs was actively engaged with the project at the same time the Lafayette Crossing name entered the city’s official workflow, his story changed.
In follow-up correspondence, Downs acknowledged he was aware of the project name, while placing responsibility for the domain purchase on former Assistant City Manager Justin Weiss. Downs stated he did not know whether the developer was aware of the purchase and said he was not concerned about potential liability.
What remains unexplained is why the city registered the domain at all, knowing it belonged to a private project, and why it attempted to keep that information from the public.
Opinion
Viewed in isolation, a $12 domain purchase might seem trivial. Viewed in context, it is not.
When a city that has already worked to astroturf support, hire public relations firms, and counter citizen opposition also quietly registers a developer’s project domain, then attempts to conceal that information from the public, the line between regulator and advocate disappears.
The question is no longer whether the city knew the name. The record shows it did.
The question is why a city government so deeply invested in selling a controversial project to its residents felt the need to take ownership of the project’s digital identity as well.
Control of messaging, control of perception, and control of narrative are powerful tools. Sometimes it is equally as important to control what is not said.
Texas Senate Primaries Show Early Leads for Crockett and Paxton
AUSTIN, Texas – A new poll released by The Texas Tribune indicates that Jasmine Crockett and Ken Paxton are leading their respective primary races for the U.S. Senate seat in Texas. The survey, published on February 9, 2026, highlights the early momentum for both candidates as they vie for their party nominations in a closely watched election cycle. The results point to strong voter recognition and support for Crockett in the Democratic primary and Paxton in the Republican primary.
The poll, conducted among likely primary voters across the state, shows Crockett holding a significant lead over her Democratic challenger James Talarico, while Paxton maintains a commanding position among Republican contenders John Cornyn & Wesley Hunt.
According to the poll, Ken Paxton leads with 38 percent of likely GOP primary voters, pulling ahead of incumbent John Cornyn, who trails at 31 percent, while Wesley Hunt remains a distant third at 17 percent. The survey indicates Paxton would hold a commanding advantage in a runoff scenario and currently outperforms Cornyn across nearly every key Republican demographic group, with Latino voters the lone exception, where Cornyn maintains a seven-point edge.
Among Democrats, the poll shows Jasmine Crockett opening a notable lead, capturing 47 percent of likely primary voters compared to 39 percent for James Talarico—a meaningful shift from earlier polling that had Talarico in the lead. While still early, the numbers suggest momentum is consolidating ahead of primaries that will determine the general election matchups.
Jasmine Crockett, a sitting U.S. Representative whose district lines were redrawn out from under her, has responded to political extinction with a desperate lurch toward the U.S. Senate. Her campaign, widely criticized as race-baiting and grievance-driven, has leaned heavily on inflaming urban Democratic turnout while cloaking thin policy substance in fashionable slogans about healthcare and “equity.”
By contrast, Ken Paxton enters the race with a long, battle-tested record as Texas Attorney General, earning fierce loyalty from conservatives for his aggressive defense of state sovereignty, constitutional limits, and successful legal challenges to federal overreach. Though relentlessly targeted by opponents, Paxton’s tenure reflects durability, clarity of purpose, and an unapologetic alignment with the voters he represents—qualities that define his standing in the contest.
The Texas U.S. Senate race draws national attention, as the state remains a critical battleground in determining the balance of power in Congress. With incumbent dynamics and shifting voter demographics at play, the primary outcomes will set the stage for a potentially contentious general election. The Texas Tribune poll serves as an initial benchmark, though voter sentiment could evolve as campaigns intensify and debates unfold in the coming weeks.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem joined national security leaders in a dual-state event to commemorate a historic decline in border crossings, according to an official release from the Department of Homeland Security. The event spanned two locations, Arizona and North Dakota, in a single day, highlighting coordinated efforts to strengthen border security. Noem, alongside other officials, marked the achievement as a significant milestone in national security policy.
The Department of Homeland Security reported a measurable drop in unauthorized border crossings, attributing the success to enhanced enforcement measures and inter-agency collaboration. Specific data on the decline was not detailed in the initial announcement, though officials emphasized the impact of recent policy implementations. The two-state commemoration underscored the geographic breadth of the issue, addressing both southern and northern border concerns.
In Arizona, Noem and security leaders reviewed operations along the southern border, a longstanding focal point for immigration enforcement. Later in the day, the group traveled to North Dakota to assess northern border security, an area often overlooked in national discussions but critical to comprehensive policy. The dual focus aimed to demonstrate a unified approach to protecting all U.S. borders, per the department’s statement.
The official release from Homeland Security included remarks from Noem, who praised the dedication of personnel involved in the effort. “This decline in crossings is a testament to the hard work of our agents and the effectiveness of our strategies,” she said. Her comments were echoed by other leaders present, though no additional direct quotations were provided in the initial report.
Background on the border security initiatives reveals a multi-year push to address vulnerabilities at both entry points. Southern border challenges, particularly in Arizona, have long dominated policy debates due to high volumes of crossings and complex terrain. Meanwhile, northern border issues in states like North Dakota often involve different dynamics, including trade security and seasonal migration patterns. The Department of Homeland Security has prioritized resources for both regions, though specific funding allocations remain undisclosed in the latest update.
The cause of the reported decline ties directly to recent enforcement actions, though exact mechanisms were not specified in the announcement. Officials pointed to improved technology, increased staffing, and stronger partnerships with local and state authorities as contributing factors. Further details on these efforts are expected in forthcoming reports from the department, which has committed to transparency on border metrics.
Opinion
The recognition of a decline in border crossings signals a potential turning point in how the nation secures its frontiers. Celebrating this achievement in two distinct regions reinforces the importance of a comprehensive strategy that does not neglect less-discussed areas like the northern border.
Events like these also serve as a reminder that security is not a partisan issue but a fundamental duty of government. Prioritizing resources and personnel to protect sovereignty while maintaining lawful entry processes should remain a core focus, ensuring that progress is sustained through consistent policy and accountability.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login