Anti-ICE Protest at Cities Church

On the morning of January 18, 2026, amid escalating tensions over federal immigration enforcement in the Twin Cities, a group of approximately three dozen anti-ICE activists targeted Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. The demonstration was part of broader protests sparked by recent ICE operations, including the fatal shooting of Renee Good by an ICE officer earlier that month. The activists, led by civil rights attorney Nekima Levy Armstrong, aimed to confront the congregation about Pastor David Easterwood's role as acting director of ICE's St. Paul field office, viewing it as a contradiction to Christian values of compassion. Armstrong had promoted the action on social media beforehand, framing it as a nonviolent effort to highlight hypocrisy and demand accountability.

Coordination Outside The Church

Before entering the building, the activists convened outside Cities Church in the parking lot and adjacent areas. This pre-entry assembly served as a critical planning phase, where the group finalized their strategy to ensure a coordinated and impactful disruption. Participants arrived in small groups to maintain a low profile, avoiding immediate detection by church staff or security. During this time, they discussed key elements of the plan: specific chants like "ICE out!" and "Hands up, don’t shoot!," references to Renee Good to tie the action to recent events, and assigned roles for who would lead the entry and advance toward the front of the sanctuary. The outdoor huddle lasted several minutes, allowing for last-minute adjustments and unity-building, with organizers emphasizing peaceful but persistent confrontation.

Don Lemon, the former CNN anchor now producing content for his YouTube channel, was present during this external coordination. He arrived equipped with a microphone and camera setup for livestreaming, embedding himself among the activists as they prepared. Lemon interacted with key figures like Armstrong, capturing on-camera explanations of the protest's rationale and objectives before the group moved inside. His involvement indicated prior knowledge of the event, as he positioned his equipment to document the transition from planning to action, effectively aligning his coverage with the group's timeline.

Entering the Sanctuary and Initial Disruption

Once organized, the activists proceeded as a unified group toward the church entrance, timing their move to coincide with the ongoing morning worship service. The service had already begun, with congregants seated and engaged in opening prayers. The protesters pushed through the doors in a swift rush, flooding into the sanctuary and immediately commandeering the space. This sudden entry halted proceedings, as the group spread out across the aisles and toward the front, ensuring their presence was impossible to ignore.

Don Lemon entered alongside or immediately following the activists, his camera rolling to capture the ingress in real time. He navigated the space with the group, setting up to livestream the unfolding events from within the place of worship.

The Height of the Confrontation Inside

Inside the sanctuary, the disruption intensified with loud, repetitive chants echoing through the room. Protesters shouted "ICE out!" and "Renee Good," while some advanced close to the pulpit to amplify their message directly to the congregation. Attempts by church leaders to resume the service, including playing worship music to overpower the noise, proved ineffective as the demonstrators' voices dominated. Families with children and other attendees rose in alarm, many heading toward the exits to escape the chaos, creating a scene of visible distress and confusion.

Lead Pastor Jonathan Parnell, who was presiding, paused his role and directly addressed the intruders. He described the action as a shameful invasion of a sacred space dedicated to worshiping Jesus and engaged in a brief, heated exchange, pleading for them to leave and respect the gathering. Despite this, the protesters maintained their chants for several minutes, refusing to depart immediately. Easterwood was not present that morning, shifting the focus entirely to alerting and confronting the churchgoers about his affiliations.

Amid the commotion, Don Lemon approached Parnell for an on-camera interview, questioning him about the protest's implications and Easterwood's role. Parnell reiterated the disruption's inappropriateness and requested Lemon to exit if not there for worship, but Lemon persisted in filming, commenting live on the tension and defending protest rights under the First Amendment.

Exiting the Church and Immediate Aftermath

After continuing the interruption for nearly 10 minutes—long enough to end the service prematurely—the activists began filtering out of the sanctuary. They reconvened briefly in a nearby alley, where they continued chanting for a short time before dispersing. Videos from the event, including Lemon's full livestream and footage from participants affiliated with Black Lives Matter Minnesota, circulated widely, depicting the coordinated tactics and the impact on attendees. Congregants later described the experience as invasive and frightening, disrupting what was intended as a peaceful place of community and faith.

The Shared Protections of the First Amendment

This incident highlights a fundamental irony in how the First Amendment is applied. The same constitutional provision that grants protesters the right to assemble and express their views—on public property, where speech protections are strongest—also safeguards the churchgoers' right to free exercise of religion. The worship service at Cities Church was a protected First Amendment activity: congregants peacefully gathered to pray, sing, and participate in communal faith without government interference or disruption. Entering private property like a church to interrupt this exercise crosses into criminal territory, including trespass and potential violations of laws protecting religious freedom.

Yet the Left often demands robust protections for their preferred forms of protest while downplaying or excusing interference with opposing viewpoints, even when those involve sacred, constitutionally shielded religious practices. This selective application of First Amendment rights is evident here: activists claimed free speech to justify storming a sanctuary and halting worship, but the congregants' equally protected right to assemble and exercise religion freely was trampled without similar outrage from many on the Left.

Imagine if the roles were reversed—if conservative or Republican protesters disrupted a mosque during Friday prayers or stormed a progressive church service to protest a leader's views. The outcry from the left and mainstream media would be immediate and deafening: accusations of Islamophobia, bigotry, threats to religious freedom, and "domestic terrorism" would dominate headlines for weeks. Yet in this case, the disruption of a Christian congregation draws zero condemnation from the same voices.

This case is yet another example of one-sided enforcement: speech for me, but not for thee, undermining the principle that constitutional protections must apply evenly to all, regardless of ideology.