Federal Charges Against 4 Journalists for Covering an ICE Protest
Independent journalist Georgia Fort filed three motions to dismiss federal charges on August 6, 2026, after being indicted for livestreaming a protest inside a St. Paul, Minnesota church. Fort’s attorneys argue the prosecution violates her First Amendment rights and constitutes “vindictive prosecution” by the Justice Department.
Fort was indicted alongside three other journalists, including former CNN anchor Don Lemon and his producer Michael Beute, and 34 activists. All face the same two charges: felony conspiracy against the right of religious freedom at a place of worship, and a misdemeanor count of interfering with the exercise of religious freedom. The federal government drew no legal distinction between the journalists and the protesters they covered.
“All of the evidence in this case points to the government prosecuting Fort precisely because she is a journalist, and in particular because she engaged in that constitutionally sacred work to amplify a message with which the government vehemently disagrees.”
Fort’s attorneys, in their motion to dismiss, August 6, 2026
The Protest That Triggered the Indictment
The January 18, 2026, demonstration at Cities Church in St. Paul was organized after an immigration enforcement agent killed Renee Good, sparking widespread protests. Demonstrators targeted Cities Church specifically because it employs David Easterwood, an ICE official, arguing that ICE’s tactics were irreconcilable with Christian teachings.
Then-Attorney General Pam Bondi personally addressed the prosecution in a public statement. “We are coming after you if you participated in that,” Bondi said, singling out “failed CNN journalist[s]” by name. The highest ranks of the Trump Justice Department directed the charges, according to the Minnesota Reformer. A career prosecutor assigned to the case quit in disgust rather than proceed.
Why Fort’s Case Matters for Press Freedom
Fort has spent nearly 20 years as a journalist and holds press credentials from both state and federal courts. She has won three regional Emmy Awards for reporting on police brutality. She is also the founder of BLCK Press and the Center for Broadcast Journalism.
Her three motions argue distinct grounds for dismissal. First, that her journalism is protected by the First Amendment. Second, that prosecutors failed to allege any facts that constitute a crime.
Third, that the government “manipulated the law” to target her in retaliation for her reporting. A ruling on those motions could set precedent for whether journalists can be prosecuted for covering civil disobedience.
The charges have alarmed press freedom organizations nationally. Prosecuting journalists under a religious freedom statute, for filming inside a church where they had access, has no established legal precedent.
What You Can Do Now
-
Contact the Senate Judiciary Committee at (202) 224-5225 and demand oversight hearings on DOJ’s prosecution of journalists covering immigration enforcement. Ask your senator by name to request a committee investigation.
-
Call your House representative at (202) 225-3121 and ask them to cosponsor the PRESS Act (H.R. 4250), which would extend federal shield law protections to journalists. Tell them Fort’s indictment is exactly why the bill matters.
-
Contact the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press at rcfp.org to find out whether an amicus brief supporting Fort’s dismissal motions is being organized, and ask how your organization or legal contacts can sign on.
-
File a public comment with the DOJ’s Office of Public Affairs at (202) 514-2007. Tell them that charging journalists under a religious freedom statute for filming a protest sets a precedent that threatens all press coverage of civil disobedience.
Sources
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press: Federal Shield Law and Journalist Protections
Congress.gov: PRESS Act H.R. 4250 Shield Law Legislation
Brennan Center for Justice: Press Freedom and Government Prosecution of Journalists
[Callout: Career DOJ prosecutor quit rather than continue the case, unprecedented protest against political charge.
Minnesota Reformer]