What is the FACE Act and why is Trump using it against Don Lemon?

The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or the FACE Act, was passed by Congress in 1994 in response to violent blockades, threats, and attacks at abortion clinics. Its core aim was straightforward: protect people from being physically obstructed or intimidated while seeking reproductive health services.

The statute was later expanded to include places of religious worship, making it a federal offense to use force, threats, or physical obstruction to interfere with someone’s right to practice their religion. While that addition broadened the law’s scope, its enforcement history remained tightly focused on conduct involving coercion or intimidation, not reporting.

That context matters in the case now involving Don Lemon.

What happened at the church

On January 18, anti-ICE protesters entered Cities Church in St. Paul during a service, disrupting worship and confronting congregants. Lemon and journalist Georgia Fort were inside the church filming and live-streaming the protest as it unfolded.

Federal prosecutors argue the disruption amounted to coordinated interference with religious worship. On that basis, they say the FACE Act applies. Lemon, however, insists he was present solely as a journalist and repeatedly stated on camera that he was not participating in the protest.

Why the charge is so unusual

Criminally charging a reporter is rare. Doing so under the FACE Act is rarer still.

The Justice Department’s argument appears to hinge on the idea that remaining inside the church during the disruption constituted interference with congregants’ religious rights. Critics counter that this interpretation risks collapsing the distinction between documenting an event and taking part in it.

A federal magistrate initially rejected earlier charges against Lemon, citing insufficient evidence. Prosecutors were encouraged to seek a grand jury indictment, which they have now done.

The First Amendment clash

At the heart of the case is a collision between two constitutional protections: the free exercise of religion and freedom of the press. Courts have historically given journalists wide latitude to document newsworthy events, even when those events involve unlawful conduct by others.

If filming inside a disrupted service is deemed interference under the FACE Act, press freedom advocates warn it could chill coverage of protests in churches, campuses, and other private spaces where public interest reporting often occurs. Let’s see how it plays out as Trump’s administration continues to take the headlines and sow division.

Get your game on! Whether you’re into NFL touchdowns, NBA buzzer-beaters, world-class soccer goals, or MLB home runs, our app has it all.

Dive into live coverage, expert insights, breaking news, exclusive videos, and more – plus, stay updated on the latest in current affairs and entertainment. Download now for all-access coverage, right at your fingertips – anytime, anywhere.