U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said Friday that the Department of Justice will continue pursuing criminal charges connected to a protest that disrupted a church service in St. Paul, Minnesota, signaling that federal authorities are prepared to escalate legal action against individuals they believe crossed legal boundaries, including potentially high-profile figures. Bondi made the comments during an appearance on Fox News, where she emphasized that federal law protects places of worship and congregants from intimidation, disruption, and violence. According to Bondi, the incident at Cities Church on January 18 went beyond lawful protest and entered the realm of criminal behavior, prompting the DOJ to mobilize resources to investigate potential civil rights violations and obstruction offenses. She framed the matter as one of law enforcement rather than politics, insisting that the government has a responsibility to ensure religious freedom and public safety regardless of who is involved. The Attorney General stressed that the DOJ would not be deterred by public pressure, media criticism, or the status of those under scrutiny, reiterating that “no one is above the law” when federal statutes are allegedly violated. Her remarks came amid heightened national attention on protests targeting religious institutions, immigration enforcement, and public officials, and they underscored the administration’s broader messaging about maintaining order while protecting constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Bondi’s comments were particularly pointed when addressing demonstrators who entered the church sanctuary during a Sunday service, chanting slogans and interrupting worshippers. She described the incident as an act of intimidation that crossed a clear legal line, arguing that while peaceful protest is protected, forcibly disrupting a religious service is not. “If you protested and went into that church on Sunday, and you terrorized the parishioners, we are coming after you,” Bondi said, adding that the federal government would not tolerate what she characterized as mob behavior inside houses of worship. Speaking directly to Fox News host Sean Hannity, she underscored that the DOJ’s role is to enforce the law evenly, regardless of a person’s profession or public profile. “I don’t care who you are,” she said, referencing what she described as a “failed CNN journalist,” in remarks widely interpreted as directed at former CNN host Don Lemon. Bondi further argued that allowing such conduct to go unpunished would undermine public confidence in the justice system and normalize behavior more commonly associated, in her words, with “third-world” instability. Her rhetoric reflected a broader law-and-order framing, positioning the DOJ as a defender of institutional norms and constitutional protections, particularly when religious practice is involved.

The protest at the center of the controversy was a self-organized anti-ICE demonstration that took place during a worship service at Cities Church, a congregation in St. Paul. Protesters objected to the church’s pastor, whom they accused of having ties to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an agency that has become a frequent target of activism related to immigration enforcement. According to accounts of the event, a group of demonstrators entered the sanctuary during the service, shouted slogans, and disrupted proceedings, prompting alarm among parishioners and church leadership. Critics of the protest argued that the demonstrators’ actions infringed upon the religious freedom of worshippers, while supporters maintained that the protest was a form of moral opposition to immigration enforcement policies. The incident quickly drew national attention, in part due to the presence of Don Lemon, who attended the protest and livestreamed portions of it on his independent media platform. The visibility of the event, combined with its religious setting, elevated what might otherwise have been a local disturbance into a national political and legal flashpoint, prompting responses from federal officials, religious leaders, and civil liberties advocates alike.

Bondi confirmed that three individuals connected to the protest—Nekima Levy Armstrong, Chauntyll Louisa Allen, and William Kelly—were arrested earlier in the week in connection with the disruption. While specific charging documents have not yet been made public, the arrests signaled that prosecutors believe there is sufficient evidence to pursue criminal cases related to the incident. A federal judge appointed during the Biden administration ordered the defendants released after determining they were not flight risks, though the underlying legal proceedings remain ongoing. The Department of Justice has not detailed the precise statutes under which the individuals may be charged, but officials have indicated that potential violations could include obstruction, intimidation, or civil rights offenses. The arrests reinforced Bondi’s assertion that the DOJ intends to take concrete action rather than merely issue warnings. At the same time, the department’s handling of the case has drawn scrutiny from civil rights groups, who argue that aggressive prosecution could have a chilling effect on protest activity. The situation has thus become a focal point in the broader debate over where the line should be drawn between protected protest and criminal conduct.

The legal situation surrounding Don Lemon has proven more complex. According to Bondi, the DOJ initially sought to bring charges related to Lemon’s presence at the protest, but a federal magistrate judge declined to approve the complaint, meaning no charges have been filed against him to date. Bondi suggested, however, that this did not mark the end of the matter, indicating that prosecutors could pursue alternative legal avenues as the investigation continues. She emphasized that the department “will remain mobilized to prosecute federal crimes,” signaling that Lemon’s case remains under review. Lemon has strongly pushed back against any suggestion of wrongdoing, asserting that he was acting in a journalistic capacity by documenting and livestreaming the protest. In public statements and on his own media platforms, he has criticized the DOJ’s actions as politically motivated and has argued that targeting journalists for covering protests represents a dangerous precedent. The tension between prosecutorial discretion and press freedom has become a central theme of the controversy, with supporters of Lemon warning that criminalizing newsgathering could erode First Amendment protections.

Lemon has continued to respond defiantly to the prospect of renewed legal action, using his YouTube show and social media presence to challenge federal authorities directly. In a recent episode, he said he was “standing proud” and made clear that he believes the DOJ will attempt to pursue charges again. He framed the situation not as a question of justice, but as one of power and institutional overreach, accusing officials of incompetence and political bias. “This is not about justice,” Lemon said, asserting that efforts to charge him were aimed at silencing dissent rather than enforcing the law. His remarks drew further attention when Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Harmeet Dhillon responded to one of Lemon’s posts with a single word: “Okay.” The brief reply was widely interpreted as a signal that the department was unfazed by Lemon’s rhetoric and prepared to proceed as it sees fit. As the investigation continues, the case has come to symbolize a broader national debate over protest, press freedom, religious liberty, and the limits of lawful dissent—issues that are likely to remain contentious well beyond the outcome of any individual prosecution.

WATCH: