If there were any lingering doubts about how casually some Democratic officials now treat the erosion of basic civil order, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison erased them this week with a single, stunning statement.
After anti-ICE activists stormed a Christian church service in St. Paul — interrupting worship, shouting down congregants, and turning a private religious gathering into a political spectacle — Ellison went on Don Lemon’s livestream and effectively told churchgoers that this is just part of modern life. Not a crime. Not an outrage. Just something Americans are expected to tolerate.
“It’s freedom of expression,” Ellison said. “It’s just something you’ve gotta live with in a society.”
That comment alone should disqualify him from serving as Minnesota’s top law-enforcement officer.
When “Protest” Becomes Permission
No serious legal mind disputes that peaceful protest is protected under the First Amendment. But what Ellison did on Lemon’s show was something far more radical: he blurred the line between lawful protest and unlawful disruption, granting moral permission for mobs to invade private religious services so long as the cause aligns with progressive ideology.
The incident in question occurred Sunday at Cities Church in St. Paul, where anti-ICE activists entered the building during a worship service, disrupted proceedings, and attempted to hijack the event for political messaging. This was not a public square. This was not a sidewalk rally. This was private property, during a religious ceremony.
Under both constitutional doctrine and federal statute, that distinction matters.
Apparently not to Minnesota’s attorney general.
Ellison framed the invasion as a clash of equal constitutional values — freedom of religion versus freedom of expression — and concluded that religious Americans must simply accept such intrusions as the cost of living in a free society.
That is not constitutional interpretation. That is ideological rationalization.
The Law Ellison Ignored
Ellison’s remarks were remarkable not only for their dismissiveness, but for their disregard of existing law.
Federal statute is explicit. Title 18, United States Code, Section 247 makes it a crime to intentionally obstruct or interfere with a person’s free exercise of religious beliefs through force, threat, or intimidation. The statute was written precisely to prevent mobs from targeting houses of worship.
There is also the FACE Act and the Ku Klux Klan Act, both of which can apply when coordinated action interferes with civil rights on private property.
None of this is obscure. None of it is controversial. And all of it is well within the professional competence of a state attorney general.
Yet Ellison did not mention any of it. Instead, he waved the incident away as a normal expression of civic engagement.
If the same tactics had been used against a mosque, synagogue, or progressive political gathering, there is no doubt Ellison would be demanding prosecutions and federal intervention.
That double standard is the story.
Don Lemon’s Curious Role
Ellison’s appearance with Don Lemon only deepened the controversy.
Lemon, who arrived at the church after the disruption and filmed inside the facility, has drawn scrutiny from federal officials over whether he had prior knowledge of the activists’ plans or coordinated with them in advance.
That question is no longer theoretical.
Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon publicly warned that Lemon’s conduct could expose him to legal liability if evidence shows coordination or participation in an unlawful conspiracy.
Her point was simple: journalism is not a magic shield.
Entering a private facility amid an ongoing disruption and claiming press credentials does not absolve someone of responsibility if they were embedded in planning or execution. If activists broke the law, and Lemon knowingly assisted or amplified that effort in real time, the First Amendment does not grant immunity.
Ellison, notably, did not express concern about that possibility either.
A Pattern, Not an Accident
Ellison’s comments did not emerge in a vacuum. Minnesota has become ground zero for progressive governance that routinely excuses unlawful behavior when it advances favored causes.
From sanctuary policies that obstruct federal immigration enforcement to the soft-pedaling of riots, vandalism, and intimidation, the state’s leadership has repeatedly signaled that enforcement is optional — selectively applied based on political sympathy.
What makes Ellison’s remarks especially troubling is his role. Attorneys general are not activists. They are sworn to uphold the law evenly, regardless of ideology.
When the state’s chief law-enforcement officer tells citizens that mob disruptions of religious services are something they must simply endure, he is not interpreting the Constitution. He is abandoning it.
The Alinsky Playbook in Action
This episode fits neatly into a familiar political strategy: normalize the abnormal until resistance collapses.
Radical activists disrupt a church.
Officials refuse to condemn it.
The behavior is reframed as “speech.”
Victims are told to adapt.
Future disruptions become easier.
That cycle is straight out of Saul Alinsky’s rules for radicals, where pressure, discomfort, and moral inversion are tools to force compliance. Institutions that resist are labeled intolerant. Those that submit are left alone.
Ellison’s role in this dynamic was not passive. He actively legitimized the tactic.
What This Means Going Forward
Ellison’s statement has consequences beyond one church service.
It tells activists that religious spaces are fair game.
It tells law enforcement that enforcement is discouraged.
It tells believers that their rights are negotiable.
And it tells political allies that the law will bend for them.
That is not pluralism. That is selective governance.
If public officials cannot clearly state that invading religious services is unacceptable and unlawful, then the protection of religious liberty exists only on paper.
The Civil Rights Irony
The bitter irony is that Ellison presents himself as a civil-rights champion.
Civil rights, however, are not divisible. They are not reserved for favored groups or fashionable causes. The same legal protections that safeguard protest also safeguard worship.
Ellison’s failure to defend that balance reveals a deeper truth: in today’s progressive hierarchy, religious freedom ranks lower than activist disruption.
Final Thoughts
A society does not remain free by telling its citizens to “live with” lawlessness.
It remains free by drawing lines — and enforcing them.
When mobs invade churches, the response from law-enforcement leadership should be unequivocal condemnation, not philosophical shrugging. When activists cross from protest into coercion, the law is not optional.
Keith Ellison had an opportunity to reaffirm those principles.
Instead, he chose to excuse the mob and lecture the victims.
And in doing so, he confirmed exactly why so many Americans no longer trust institutions that claim to protect their rights — while quietly eroding them.