Jan. 30, 2026, 7:29 PM EST

Fresh out of federal custody, former BLN anchor Don Lemon vowed Friday not to back off his work as a journalist despite an indictment against him and others over an anti-ICE protest he covered this month at a Minnesota church.

Lemon cited his profession’s protections under the First Amendment — the same one federal prosecutors contend he and his co-defendants violated by infringing on the churchgoers’ freedom of religion.

“There is no more important time than right now, this very moment, for a free and independent media that shines a light on the truth and holds those in power accountable,” Lemon said in his first public remarks since his arrest late Thursday.

“The First Amendment of the Constitution protects that work for me and for countless of other journalists who do what I do. I stand with all of them, and I will not be silenced,” he added, speaking outside a federal courthouse in Los Angeles, where he had just been ordered released pending trial.

Lemon, fellow independent journalist Georgia Fort and two people active in Democratic circles in Minnesota were arrested as part of a broader indictment over the Jan. 18 demonstration against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which Lemon livestreamed while reporting on the event at Cities Church in St. Paul.

Demonstrators say they were there to protest ICE tactics and a pastor of the church, David Easterwoodwho also leads the local field office for ICE. Easterwood was recently listed as a defendant in a casebrought by protesters who alleged immigration agents had violated their First and Fourth Amendment rights.

“I’m just here photographing, I’m not part of the group. … I’m a journalist,” Lemon is heard saying in his video.

The indictment names nine defendants. The prosecution alleges in it that a group of “agitators” gathered to discuss their plans prior to traveling to Cities Church to engage in a “planned takeover-style operation.”

Demonstrators joined in on various chants inside the church including “ICE Out!” and “Stand Up, Fight Back,” according to the indictment, which was signed by Attorney General Pam Bondi, among others.

Prosecutors also allege that one defendant called some congregants “Nazi,” and asked some children, “Do you know your parents are Nazis? They’re going to burn in hell.”

The portions of the indictment involving Lemon largely hang on details from his livestream, particularly that he made a point of telling viewers he wouldn’t say where the protest was going to take place.

Lemon and Fort — in one of the few mentions of her in the indictment — are also accused of obstructing the pastor’s movements when they approached to question him; the document does not specify if this was Easterwood. Prosecutors contend Lemon “stood so close to the pastor that Lemon caused the pastor’s right hand to graze Lemon, who then admonished the pastor, ‘Please don’t push me.’”

Until now, efforts to secure charges against Lemon had stalled in court. A federal magistrate judge previously refusedto approve a criminal complaint against him, saying prosecutors hadn’t shown probable cause — a decision upheld by an appeals panel last week.

Earlier in the week, the Department of Justice had reportedly withdrawn its bid for an arrest warrant, though officials indicated they might pursue charges through other procedures.

Bondi confirmed the arrests in a social media post Friday.

“Early this morning federal agents arrested Don Lemon, Trahern Jeen Crews, Georgia Fort, and Jamael Lydell Lundy, in connection with the coordinated attack on Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota,” Bondi said on X. Fort, Crews and Lundy pleaded not guilty at a hearing Friday in Minnesota and were released.

Fort is vice president of the Minneapolis chapter of the National Association of Black Journalists. She posted a video on Facebook early Friday announcing “agents are at my door,” and said her attorney advised her to go with them.

Crews is the co-founder of Black Lives Matter Minnesota and a former Democratic candidate for the Minnesota House. Lundy is a small-business owner and a current Democratic candidate for the Minnesota Senate.

Lemon is charged with conspiracy to deprive rights and interfering by force with someone’s First Amendment rights. The most serious charge carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison.

Prosecutors argued Friday that Lemon poses a “danger to the community” and asked the judge to restrict his travel, a request the judge mostly rejected.

Lemon, wearing a tan suit and appearing visibly displeased during the hearing, did not enter a plea, but his attorneys say he will plead not guilty to all charges. His next hearing is scheduled for Feb. 9 in Minnesota.

“I look forward to my day in court,” Lemon told reporters.

Lemon was in Los Angeles to cover the Grammy Awards when he was taken into custody late Thursday.

His lawyer, Abbe Lowell, called Lemon’s arrest an “unprecedented attack” and accused the DOJ of using it as a distraction from the backlash the Trump administration is facing after the fatal shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti.

Lemon’s arrest marks a major development in a case that has stirred national debate over press freedom and federal power. The case has drawn sharp criticism from advocates and supporters of Lemon.

“Don Lemon has been a journalist for 30 years, and his constitutionally protected work in Minneapolis was no different than what he has always done,” Lowell said in a statement. “The First Amendment exists to protect journalists whose role it is to shine light on the truth and hold those in power accountable.”

Lemon is still strongly associated with his long-running show at BLN, even though he left the network nearly three years ago. The network said in a statement that his arrest raises concerns about the freedom of press.

“The First Amendment in the United States protects journalists who bear witness to news and events as they unfold, ensuring they can report freely in the public interest, and the DOJ’s attempts to violate those rights is unacceptable,” BLN said.

Several press freedom and advocacy groups condemned the arrests on Friday. The Committee to Protect Journalists saidLemon’s arrest “should alarm all Americans.”

“Instead of prioritizing accountability in the killings of two American citizens, the @realDonaldTrump administration is devoting its resources to arresting journalists,” said Katherine Jacobsen, a spokesperson for the group.

The National Action Network criticized the Trump administration for violating Lemon’s rights under the First Amendment.

“Don has spent the last decade calling out the lies or the destructive policies of President Trump, who no doubt was waiting for the right moment to use his weaponized Justice Department against him,” said Rev. Al Sharpton, the group’s founder.

Jack Pedigo and David Noriega contributed to this report.

Jan. 31, 2026, 6:00 AM EST

With the release of “Melania,” a film so devoid of substance that it feels wrong to call it a documentary, we might need to come up with a new word for shameless. Because shameless doesn’t seem harsh enough to describe the grotesqueness of releasing this cinematic farce at the end of one of the most brutal months in recent American history.

To be fair, when the release date was set, no one knew that the nation would be reeling from the fatal shootings of two Minnesota residents by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Or how ICE agents would be terrorizing communities in Minneapolis and other U.S. cities. Or how heartbreaking images of Liam Ramosa 5-year-old Minneapolis boy snatched out of his driveway with his father, would blanket social media.

But that is the climate that greets “Melania,” a movie determined to inform audiences that first lady Melania Trump cares about nothing so much as the welfare of our children and the freedoms we hold dear as Americans. “No matter where we come from, we are bound by the same humanity,” she says in one of many platitude-filled voiceovers that are slathered across “Melania” like sugary icing on a cake baked with sugar, flour, eggs and heaping amounts of hypocrisy. “I will always use my influence and power to help those in need,” she insists in another.

Across some 104 minutes, the first lady delivers these blatantly scripted and meaningless narrations with all the conviction of someone who just woke up from a two-hour nap and can’t remember what day it is.

The details about this project raised a cascade of red flags well before it opened in multiplexes Friday. Amazon spent $40 million to acquire this behind-the-scenes study of Melania during the 20 days leading up to the 2025 inauguration, a move The New York Times recently characterized as a blatant attempt to curry favor with President Donald Trump. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos is even among the wealthy tech titans seen attending a pre-inauguration candlelight dinner hosted by Melania Trump. “Our donors were truly the driving force behind our campaign,” she narrates.

It is one of the few honest things she says in the whole film.

“Melania” is directed by Brett Ratnerbest known for the decades-old “Rush Hour” franchise that President Trump recently pushed to reboot. In more recent years, Ratner has been accused of rape and sexual assault by multiple women (he denies the allegations) and his name surfaced in some of the Epstein files. Because apparently this vapid docu-endeavor didn’t already feel unsettling enough. (Also mentioned in the most recent release of Epstein files? Melania Trump.)

It appears that Ratner thought that just following Melania Trump around would provide a wealth of compelling cinematic material. Mission extremely not accomplished. Whatever one may have expected from a cinematic study of Melania Trump — Is she the power behind the throne? What is her relationship with her husband actually like? — nothing could prepare audiences for how shallow this dive into Trump World really is. I am not even talking about all the things it does in poor taste, including turning footage from Jimmy Carter’s funeral into a sequence about the death of Melania Trump’s mother a year prior. The film is poorly shot and edited, with Ratner repeatedly relying on the same imagery. The number of close-ups of Trump’s stilettos (sometimes heels, sometimes boots — she’s got range!) could break a cinematic record for the most unnecessary shots of a woman’s feet. (Yes, I am very familiar with Quentin Tarantino’s work.)

Whatever the truth of Melania the woman, “Melania” the work is incredibly boring. Over and over again, viewers must watch Mrs. Trump get into and out of cars, walk long distances inside various buildings, and attend meetings where she and her coterie of stylists and designers discuss such weighty issues as her inaugural ensemble or the new decor for the White House.

The details are more than even the first lady’s most ardent fans could possibly care to know. To the many Americans struggling economically, watching Melania Trump reveal the golden-egg-shaped caviar she plans to serve at her pre-inaugural dinner will read as a truly Marie Antoinette moment. This thing is basically “Let Them Eat Cake: The Movie.”

But because this depiction is, above all, an exercise in brand management, there is footage of Melania doing Serious First Lady Work, such as talking about her Be Best initiative with Brigitte Macron, the first lady of France, or meeting with an Israeli woman who was held hostage by Hamas and is desperate to bring home her still-captive husband. (Title cards at the end that tout Melania Trump’s various accomplishments say that she helped get the man released after Trump took office.)

Even in interactions designed to make her seem kind, Trump seems stilted and uncomfortable. Ultimately, she remains a well-coiffed cypher. At no point do we get new insight into who she is because throughout the work, she glosses over her experiences without providing concrete or illuminating details. A film that’s supposed to allow her to reflect on her life is like watching someone try to write a book report about a book she didn’t read.

Melania’s interactions with her husband, too, convey little that hasn’t already been observed. There is minimal warmth between them, and President Trump is equally mindless in his responses to questions. “There’s nobody like her,” he says when Ratner, off camera, asks the president to talk about his wife. “She’s really difficult. But there’s nobody like her.” The most relatable moment is when the president asks his wife if she watched the congressional certification of his votes and she says no, visibly disinterested. As her husband goes on about how well he did, it’s clear she’s become a master at pretending to care what he says.

Melania is much less convincing at pretending to be a normal person. In one scene that takes place within a car, Ratner asks who her favorite musical artist is. She says Michael Jackson and mentions that she loves “Billie Jean.” That is a song about a man accusing a woman of lying about having sex with her, recorded by an artist accused of abusing children. Ratner then puts the song on and joins Melania to sing the lines, “People always tell me, be careful what you do/Don’t go around breaking young girls’ hearts.”

One wonders: Do these people have any self-awareness, like at all? Perhaps the infamous Melania jacket from her husband’s first term said it best: I really don’t care, do u?

Jen Chaney is a freelance TV and film critic whose work has been published in The New York Times, TV Guide and other outlets.

Jan. 31, 2026, 6:00 AM EST

ByAustin Sarat

Former BLN anchor Don Lemon was arrested and charged on Thursday with violating a federal law after being present during an anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) protest at a church in St. Paul, Minnesota. Since his departure from BLN in 2023, Lemon has worked independently, doing reporting and commentary on his own YouTube channel and on Substack.

Lemon and others are accused of disrupting a service at Cities Church that was being conducted by an ICE official who serves as a pastor there. Attorney General Pam Bondi described what happened as a “coordinated attack” on the church.

As she explained“Our nation was settled and founded by people fleeing religious persecution. Religious freedom is the bedrock of this country. We will protect our pastors. We will protect our churches. We will protect Americans of faith.”

In this case, the Trump administration is weaponizing its commitment to protecting religious liberty to go after Lemon and the others. The administration can dress it up any way they like. But Lemon is being targeted because he has been a long-time and vociferous critic of President Trump.

Rather than being part of the protest, Lemon was livestreaming the protests on social media. Targeting him is a signal to other journalists that they, too, may find themselves in hot water for covering and amplifying what the administration is doing in Minneapolis and other places.

Judges need to see through the ruse and stand up for press freedom at a time when the administration’s hostility to the press is reaching new heights. As Seth Stern, director of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, put it“Lemon’s arrest under a bogus legal theory is a clear warning shot aimed at other journalists. The unmistakable message is that journalists must tread cautiously because the government is looking for any way to target them.”

Lemon is not the only journalist who has run afoul of the administration while covering protests against ICE. In 2025, 32 journalists were detained or arrestedtwenty-eight of them were at immigration-related protests.

As the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker notes“Protests have long been where the fault lines of press freedom are most visible, and 2025 was no different.” The journalists who “were pulled from news scenes, placed in cuffs and held in custody from minutes to days — long enough for deadlines to pass and breaking news to go cold…”

In Lemon’s case, a federal magistrate judge, Douglas Micko, on Jan. 22 refused to issue arrest warrants that the government sought. Trump’s Department of Justice had tried to convince him that the warrants were necessary to allow it to respond to a “national security emergency.”

As the district court’s chief judge, Patrick Schiltz explained in a letter to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, there was “no evidence” that Mr. Lemon or his producer had engaged “in any criminal behavior or conspired to do so.” The Eighth Circuit was persuaded and declined to overrule Micko’s decision.

But note, these judicial decisions did not prevent the Trump administration from arresting Lemon. Moreover, they focused more on the deficiencies in the government’s case than on providing a ringing endorsement of press freedom.

Indeed, with few exceptions, legal protections of the press are not robust.

Most cases in which courts have stood up for a free press focus either on government efforts to stop newspapers from publishing material already in their possession or  punish them for material they have published.

For example, in 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled that public figures could not win libel suits against newspapers for things they published unless they could prove “actual malice,” meaning it was published “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”

Seven years later, the Court allowed The New York Times and the Washington Post to publish the so-called Pentagon Papers, which detailed a troubling pattern of government secrecy and deception during the Vietnam War. In that case, Justice Hugo Black wrote a stirring defense of press freedom.

“In the First Amendment,“ he observed, “The founding fathers gave the Free Press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy… the government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press could revert would remain forever free to censure the government.”

But all that meant for Black and the majority of his colleagues was that the First Amendment forbids “prior restraint.” The decision offered no protection for reporters, nor their sources.

They remain unprotected except through state shield laws. In 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia made clear that the Constitution did not allow a reporter to keep the identity of an informant who leaked classified information secret. It denied that the law provided a reporter/source privilege.

The court said it could not “Seriously [entertain] the notion that the First Amendment protects a news mans agreement to conceal the criminal conduct of his source, or evidence thereof, on the theory that it is better to write about a crime than to do something about it.”

Law professors Ronnell Jones and Sonja West are right to say that “Journalists themselves have few constitutional rights when it comes to matters such as access to government sources and documents or protection from being hounded by those in power for the news gathering and reporting.” That means that they are “vulnerable to the whims of society and government officials.”

Don Lemon learned that lesson when federal authorities showed up at his door.

To keep the press free in the face of authoritarian threats, the courts must do more to protect journalists. They need to interpret the First Amendment to allow reporters to keep sources confidential, and to prohibit governmental actions that needlessly prevent journalists  from carrying out their responsibilities.

They need to bolster Justice Black’s belief in the virtues of a free press by limiting the occasions on which reporters can be subject to criminal prosecution for their work.

What Thomas Jefferson said in 1787 seems especially apt today. “The basis of our government,” he wrote“being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

Only by protecting people like Don Lemon can we preserve the kind of press Jefferson envisioned and Justice Black praised.