Don Lemon, the former CNN anchor turned independent journalist, recently found himself in hot water after participating in a protest that disrupted a church service in Minneapolis. Lemon insists he was acting purely in a journalistic capacity, but a closer look at his own actions and statements raises serious questions about whether he was covering the story—or effectively acting as a spokesperson for the protesters.
Over the weekend, Lemon joined a group of anti-ICE protesters at Cities Church, which the activists targeted because they believe one of the church’s assistant pastors works for ICE. On a live stream prior to the protest, Lemon described conducting “reconnaissance” with the activists and teased a secret “operation” called Operation Pull-Up. He explained to viewers:
“These are resistance protesters; they’re planning an operation we’re going to follow them on. I can’t tell you exactly what they’re doing, but it’s called Operation Pull-Up… after we do this operation, you’ll see it live, these operations are surprise operations, again I can’t tell you where they’re going.”
This language raises an immediate red flag. Journalists do not usually conduct reconnaissance or hype secret “operations” in advance. That is the behavior of a participant or organizer, not an impartial observer. By actively coordinating or promoting the protest, Lemon blurred the line between reporting and activism.
After the event, Lemon claimed he had “no affiliation” with the activists and that he was simply chronicling the protest as a journalist:
“I had no affiliations with that organization. I didn’t even know they were going to this church until we followed them. We were there chronicling protests… Once the protest started in the church, we did an act of journalism, which was report on it and talk to the people who were involved.”
Yet this statement directly contradicts his earlier live stream comments about conducting reconnaissance and following the activists’ plans. This inconsistency undermines Lemon’s credibility and makes his insistence on journalistic impartiality difficult to accept.
The protest itself disrupted a worship service, prompting strong pushback from the church. Lead pastor Jonathan Parnell told Lemon:
“This is unacceptable, it’s shameful. It’s shameful to interrupt a public gathering of Christians in worship. I have to take care of my flock.”
Lemon’s response emphasized constitutional rights to protest, but it failed to acknowledge the unique protections afforded to houses of worship under federal law. DOJ officials are reportedly reviewing whether the protest violated the FACE Act and the Ku Klux Klan Act, both of which protect individuals’ rights to freely practice religion and prevent interference with civil rights.
What stands out most is Lemon’s lack of accountability. Instead of reflecting on the disruption caused, he doubled down, calling congregants “privileged” and suggesting their desire to worship in peace stems from white supremacy. He also characterized online backlash as intimidation from MAGA supporters, writing:
“If this much time and energy is going to be spent manufacturing outrage, it would be far better used investigating the tragic death of Renee Nicole Good — the very issue that brought people into the streets in the first place.”
This approach frames the controversy as an attack on his identity rather than a serious discussion about whether a journalist should participate in—and even help organize—a protest that interferes with religious services. Lemon is entitled to his views, but conflating activism with reporting erodes trust in journalism as a profession.
Further complicating the story, reporting has revealed that several protesters Lemon portrayed as “grassroots” activists are connected to government positions or have histories of provocative behavior. For example, Jamael Lundy, whom Lemon interviewed in the crowd, is an intergovernmental affairs coordinator for the Hennepin County attorney and married to a local councilwoman. Another participant, William Kelly, has a documented history of harassing congregants at other churches. These connections suggest that the protest was not the spontaneous, organic event Lemon presented to his audience.
Ultimately, Lemon’s actions serve as a cautionary tale. Journalism relies on clear boundaries: reporters observe, investigate, and explain, but they do not become part of the story they are covering. When Lemon hyped a secret operation, conducted reconnaissance with activists, and framed the resulting confrontation in political terms, he stepped firmly across that line.
The First Amendment protects both journalists and protesters, but it does not protect actions that may constitute harassment, intimidation, or interference with religious worship. Lemon’s failure to recognize this distinction—combined with his refusal to take meaningful responsibility—undermines both his credibility and the public’s trust in independent reporting.
Tags:
National