Don Lemon has been charged with federal civil rights crimes connected to a January 18, 2026 protest at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, during which demonstrators disrupted a church service while he was there filming and livestreaming.

The actual charges

Multiple outlets report that a federal grand jury in Minnesota indicted Don Lemon on charges related to interfering with churchgoersā€™ right to worship during that protest.

The key points:

  • He is charged with conspiracy to infringe on the constitutional rights of congregants to freely practice their religion.
  • He is also charged under the FACE Act , a federal law that prohibits using force, threats, or physical obstruction to interfere with people accessing places of worship (among other protected locations).
  • These are described in coverage as federal civil rights charges , tied specifically to alleged interference with First Amendment religious freedom.

In practical terms, prosecutors allege that Lemon joined or helped a ā€œtakeover-style attackā€ at the church that intimidated congregants and disrupted the service.

What Don Lemon says in response

Don Lemon has pleaded not guilty to the federal charges.

His public stance includes:

  • He says he was present as a journalist , not an activist, and that he was there to document the protest for his livestream.
  • In statements after his release, he has called the case an attempt to intimidate him and has vowed to fight the ā€œunfounded chargesā€ in court.
  • Press freedom and journalism rights groups have raised concerns that the case blurs the line between protected reporting and criminal conduct, arguing that reporting on protests should not itself be treated as a crime.

How the case has unfolded so far

The legal path has been unusually contentious and highly politicized.

Key developments:

  • Initially, federal prosecutors sought to charge eight people, including Don Lemon, over the Minnesota protest.
  • A federal magistrate judge first refused to sign off on charges against Lemon and several others, saying the evidence presented at that stage was insufficient, which is considered rare in federal practice.
  • Prosecutors were encouraged to take the case to a grand jury, which later returned an indictment that now forms the basis of the charges Lemon faces.
  • Lemon has been released on his own recognizance and is fighting the case while continuing to speak publicly about press freedom and the First Amendment.

Forum-style quick notes and viewpoints

Q: So, what was Don Lemon actually charged with in one sentence?
A: He was charged in federal court with conspiracy to deprive churchgoers of their civil rights and with violating the FACE Act during an antiā€‘ICE church protest in Minnesota.

Different angles people are taking in discussions:

  1. ā€œTargeting a journalistā€ view
    • Some see this as a dangerous precedent where a journalist covering a protest is being treated like an organizer or aggressor.
 * Press advocacy groups argue that unless prosecutors prove active participation in obstruction, the case risks chilling journalists from covering protests.
  1. ā€œCivil rights enforcementā€ view
    • Others emphasize that the law focuses on conduct , not speech: if a journalist crosses into coordinating or physically participating in blocking worship, that can be charged like anyone else.
 * From this standpoint, the government argues that congregantsā€™ religious freedom was infringed and that the protest went beyond peaceful expression.
  1. Political backdrop
    • The dispute has unfolded under President Donald Trumpā€™s administration, and reporting notes that Trump and allies publicly demanded Lemonā€™s arrest, framing him as part of an attack on a church.
 * Commentators point out that this political pressure is part of what has made the case so closely watched.

Simple recap (TL;DR)

  • Don Lemon is not charged with a generic crime like ā€œtrespassā€ or ā€œdisorderly conduct.ā€
  • He is charged with federal civil rights offenses : conspiracy to deprive congregants of their right to worship and violating the FACE Act , based on a disruptive protest at a Minnesota church that he was covering on video.
  • He has pleaded not guilty , insists he was acting as a journalist, and plans to fight the case in court, while the government maintains he participated in conduct that interfered with worship.

Information gathered from public forums or data available on the internet and portrayed here.