Don Lemon is getting charged under a bill meant to restrain the Klan in perhaps the year’s best example (so far) of “Every Republican accusation is a confession.”

Lemon’s arrest is another line that the current administration has crossed on the road to totalitarianism, one that people should be paying attention to. The administration hates journalists and has been attacking them in civil court, excluding them from briefings due to their coverage, insulting them to their faces, and threatening their employers’ business deals to get them fired. But now it’s using the criminal justice system to attack a journalist, literally for committing acts of journalism.

Related

The media is mocking Trump’s dishonest attempts to destroy the free press

And they chose to cross this line in a situation that involves a conservative Christian church and a gay journalist. This is not an accident.

Lemon went to the scene of a protest last month at St. Paul, Minnesota’s Cities Church, a mostly-white, conservative Christian church where one of the pastors works for ICE. The protest was organized by local Black Lives Matter groups. Like many protests that have taken place in churches, this one was co-organized by at least one Christian preacher guided by her faith.

Dive deeper every day

Join our newsletter for thought-provoking commentary that goes beyond the surface of LGBTQ+ issues
Subscribe to our Newsletter today

Lemon covered the protest as a journalist. Even the criminal indictment agrees. He is facing one count of “Conspiracy Against Right of Religious Freedom at Place of Worship,” that he intimidated people who were trying to attend a church service, and here is exactly what the indictment says Lemon did to “injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate” people in the church (these are all quotes from the indictment):

• LEMON began livestreaming his internet-based show, “The Don Lemon Show,” where he explained to his audience that he was in Minnesota with an organization that was gearing up for a “resistance” operation against the Federal Government’s immigration policies
• LEMON observed that the congregants’ reactions were understandable because the experience was “traumatic and uncomfortable,” which he said was the purpose
• LEMON [and other defendants] approached the pastor and largely surrounded him, stood in close proximity to the pastor in an attempt to oppress and intimidate him, and physically obstructed his freedom of movement while LEMON peppered him with questions to promote the operation’s message
• 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.”
• [After being told to leave] LEMON and the other defendants ignored the pastor’s request and did not immediately leave the Church
• LEMON posted himself at the main door of the Church, where he confronted some congregants and physically obstructed them as they tried to exit the Church building to challenge them with “facts” about U.S. immigration policy

That’s it. He asked people questions and livestreamed the protest. He made observations about what was going on. He interviewed congregants and let them express themselves on air. All of this is on YouTube. Congregants don’t seem intimidated by him as they’re standing next to him, being interviewed.

He didn’t threaten anyone with violence. He didn’t hit anyone. The only physical contact he had with any member of the church was when the pastor touched him.

Lemon is facing charges for broadcasting an event, asking people questions, and making observations based on what he saw. Those are all acts of journalism. Even if Lemon himself is liberal.

(Yes, there is the question of whether he was trespassing, which is actually not that obvious since the church was a space that is open to people coming in, even non-members, and he wasn’t told he was trespassing. But trespassing is a local issue, and he is facing federal charges based on the supposed intimidation.)

And the administration is making this specifically about religion, portraying it as an attack on Christians.

“Nobody is above the law. Especially not today’s klansmen — like Don Lemon — who storm churches and terrorize Christians,” said a post shared by Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon. He is facing charges under a Reconstruction Era law that was intended to protect Black people’s rights to, among other things, attend church without interference from the Klan.

Attorney General Pam Bondi accused Lemon of “performing an attack-style infiltration of a church,” as if church-goers were in physical danger, as if the goal of the protest was to hurt Christians for being Christians and not protest ICE for terrorizing the city and arresting people of color in the street.

This is despite the fact that it was co-organized by Nekima Levy Armstrong, a civil rights lawyer who also preaches at Minneapolis’s First Covenant Church. Her message was religious, one Christian expressing her faith to other Christians by asking at the protest: “How dare you claim to be a pastor of God and you are involved in evil in our community?”

Lemon himself, like many LGBTQ+ people, was raised in the church and still considers his faith important to him, so important that he even wrote a whole book about his “search for God.”

Even though this was a protest among Christians, the administration is portraying it as anti-Christian because one side is conservative white Christians, the only kind of Christians that Republicans recognize as legitimate. To conservative Christians, progressive Christians are suspect, and LGBTQ+ people, no matter their faith, are the enemy of religiosity itself.

Lemon will likely be fine here. He is established enough and connected enough – and the judge seems skeptical enough – that he will likely get the charges dismissed.

But this was intended to be an act of intimidation to other journalists, and some people in this profession, especially those without the resources Lemon has, will likely ask themselves if a story is worth going to prison over. And that’s the goal – the administration has not taken kindly to information disseminating that does not show it in a positive light.

It has also become really clear in the past year that the president doesn’t see himself as the president of the whole country. It’s not like past presidents, even Republicans, who acted like they were elected to a real political office whose constituents included people who didn’t vote for them.

For this president, it’s like he thinks he’s the leader of a group of thugs, and he somehow got his hands on the levers of power. He has no sense of justice or responsibility, not even the warped, biased sense of justice and responsibility that, say, George W. Bush had.

For the current president, power is to be used to benefit himself personally and then the people he perceives as a part of his coalition. And Lemon, as an educated Black gay journalist, is clearly not a part of that coalition.

Subscribe to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter and be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.

Former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy says it’s not for him to know whether his series of landmark rulings on LGBTQ+ rights will remain in place.

“We’ll see,” he told ABC News in an interview promoting his new memoir. “That’s for the next generation to decide.”

Related

Amy Coney Barrett discusses possibility of Supreme Court overturning marriage equality

Kennedy is perhaps best known for authoring the Obergefell v. Hodges decision that legalized marriage equality nationwide. One piece of his ruling, in particular, is often quoted:

“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideal of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family.  In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.  As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death.  It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded form one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law.  The Constitution grants them that right.”

Never Miss a Beat

Subscribe to our newsletter to stay ahead of the latest LGBTQ+ political news and insights.
Subscribe to our Newsletter today

Kennedy also voted in the majority for Romer v. Evans, which upheld that the Equal Protection Clause does not allow states to deny gay people the same legal protections that straight people have.

And in 2003, he voted with the majority in the landmark case of Lawrence v. Texas, which ruled that a Texas law criminalizing consensual same-sex relations was unconstitutional.

But right now, it is marriage equality that is facing the biggest threat.

After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the same legal reasoning could also be used to overturn marriage equality. Anti-LGBTQ+ Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has also been outspoken about his hatred of the Obergefell decision, though he recently claimed the precedent set by the court’s ruling is “entitled to respect.”

As the court becomes more and more conservative, Republican-led states across the country have also passed resolutions asking the justices to overturn marriage equality.

In his interview with ABC, Kennedy emphasized a major reason he believes Obergefell should remain in place.

“Stare decisis, the rule that a precedent should be given great weight, in part, depends on reliance,” he said. “There’s been so much reliance on the marriage opinion that if it were to reverse, people who had had what they thought were decent, honorable lives all of a sudden would be adrift again.”

Reliance is a legal term defined as “the dependence by one person on another person’s or entity’s statements or actions, particularly where the person acts upon such dependence.” That is, people make life decisions based on what the law is, so ruling that a law means something different has to take that “reliance” into account. Such reliance must be considered “reasonable.”

Kennedy, who is Catholic, explained that his views on gay people evolved as he learned about the prevalence of children who had been adopted by queer couples.

“There were thousands of children that were adopted by gay parents,” he said, “and for them to know that their parents were not recognized by society, but the law, as real parents, as something that was marginally illegal, could create a profound sadness for thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of children.”

He added that he “began to learn about the hurt and the anguish and the desire these people had to live a wonderful life and contribute to our country.”

The fact that “the law protects us all,” he explained, “seemed to be a good lesson to teach.”

In the Obergefell opinion, Kennedy outlined the costs of not allowing couples with children to legally marry: “Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life.”

He wrote that the fact that so many children are already being raised in queer households “provides powerful confirmation from the law itself that gays and lesbians can create loving, supportive families.”

Kennedy has spoken about the significance of reliance before. In October 2025, he told CNN about hundreds of thousands of adopted children that motivated his opinion in the Obergefell case.

These families, he said, now have a “substantial reliance” on the decision, which has granted them stability. If the decision were overturned, Kennedy said it “would be a tremendous reliance problem.”

During his conversation with ABC, he also emphasized his belief in equal rights for trans people.

“I don’t think we can have a peaceful world unless all sides agree that whatever we think of your ambitions, or your beliefs, we will treat you with dignity, and we will discuss it in a thoughtful, rational, productive, decent way, respecting your dignity,” he said. “You believe in X. We believe in Y. We can recognize that both of those have some merit to them.”

Subscribe to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter and be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.

Billie Eilish is facing right-wing backlash for comments she made criticizing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at the Grammys.

While accepting the award for Song of the Year at Sunday night’s 68th Annual Grammy Awards, Eilish called on opponents of federal agents’ brutal enforcement tactics — which have already led to the deaths of at least eight people, including Renee Good and Alex Pretti — to “keep fighting and speaking up and protesting.”

Related

Grammys 2026: Queer winners and LGBTQ+ allies blast ICE

Never Miss a Beat

Subscribe to our newsletter to stay ahead of the latest LGBTQ+ political news and insights.
Subscribe to our Newsletter today

In her speech, Eilish also asserted that “no one is illegal on stolen land,” likely a reference to the acquisition of Indigenous land by early settlers across the U.S.

In the days since the Grammys, critics on social media have seized on the comment, accusing Eilish of hypocrisy.

“Ok, Billie. Your $14,000,000 mansion in LA is built where the Tongva tribes once lived,” the End Wokeness X account posted Sunday. “Any plans on returning it?”

In a Monday post responding to Eilish’s speech, British journalist Julia Hartley-Brewer described the pop star as “a blithering idiot,” adding that if Eilish were serious about her comments, “then she’ll happily hand over her multi-million pound Malibu beachfront home to illegal migrants… Which she won’t, because it’s all just silly celeb posturing.”

Similarly, right-wing media personality Eric Daugherty claimed in a Monday X post that “Americans are calling on Hollywood elitist Billie Eilish to RETURN her $14M LA mansion to the Tongva tribe,” adding that she “could also graciously host illegal aliens in her mansion.”

Speaking to Fox News host Jesse Watters, conservative commentator Sage Steele described Eilish’s comments as “comical” and advised the pop star to “shut up and sing, because you’re super talented, but you don’t know what you’re talking about.”

British right-wing news outlet GB News went so far as to send a correspondent to try to gain entrance to Eilish’s LA home. “Let us in please, Billie,” reporter Ben Leo said during the stunt. “We are here because this is stolen land, Billie, and we think we should be given access to your quite lovely $3 million mansion.”

Perhaps most bizarrely, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R) brought up Eilish’s comments during a seemingly unrelated Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, while questioning Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos and Warner Bros. Discovery executive Bruce Campbell on the two companies’ proposed merger.

Cruz asked Sarandos whether they were all on “stolen land,” and both Sarandos and Campbell responded that they were unaware of the history of the land they were on. Cruz suggested that the fact that neither exec. was willing to say “Hell no” indicated that “the entertainment world is deeply corrupt” and that Hollywood censors conservative voices.

Amid all this, a spokesperson for the Tongva Nation of the Greater Los Angeles Basin confirmed to The Daily Mail that Eilish’s LA home is on the tribe’s ancestral land. While Eilish has not contacted the tribe directly, they said, “We do value the instance when Public Figures provide visibility to the true history of this country.” The spokesperson added that the tribe has reached out to Eilish’s team to express their “appreciation for her comments.”

“It is our hope that in future discussions, the tribe can explicitly be referenced to ensure the public understands that the greater Los Angeles basin remains Gabrieleno Tongva territory,” the tribe’s spokesperson said.

Meanwhile, as The Blast notes, Eilish supporters have pointed out that the Grammy-winner has pledged to donate $11.5 million in profits from her recent Hit Me Hard and Soft tour to organizations and projects that support food equity, climate justice, reducing carbon pollution, and combating the climate crisis. While accepting the Wall Street Journal Magazine’s Music Innovator of the Year award in October, Eilish urged the billionaires in the room to “give your money away,” according to Rolling Stone.

Subscribe to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter and be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.