News

DOJ’s Harmeet Dhillon Vows Accountability Over Church Invasion

DOJ Civil Rights Leader Promises Full Accountability, Says She Plans to Identify Everyone Involved in Minnesota Church Disruption, Highlights Don Lemon’s Presence

Published

2 months ago

January 24, 2026

Leyna Wong

Harmeet Dhillon, Don Lomon, DOJ Accountablility

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Department of Justice (DOJ) is signaling a tougher posture on protest cases tied to religious sites. Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon said the DOJ plans to seek criminal accountability for people involved in a disruptive demonstration at a Minnesota church. She also pointed to former CNN anchor Don Lemon because he was filmed inside the church during the incident and later shared video from the scene.

The protest took place in St. Paul at Cities Church. Demonstrators interrupted a worship service to object to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policies. Organizers claimed a pastor connected to the church held a senior role linked to immigration enforcement, and they framed the action as a demand for justice.

Video from the event showed protesters entering the sanctuary, chanting, and holding signs. Church leaders and members described it as a violation of a place meant for quiet worship.

Dhillon addressed the situation in an interview on Newsmax’s “Newsline.” She said she plans to identify “every single person” involved in what she called the Minnesota church mob. She also said the DOJ will use federal law to hold people responsible, arguing that interrupting religious services crosses a clear legal boundary.

During the same appearance, she singled out Don Lemon and said the department would hold him accountable for what she described as his role in the protest.

The dispute around Lemon centers on his on-site coverage. Since leaving CNN, Don Lemon has worked independently and was present during the demonstration. He recorded video from inside the church and posted clips online.

Don Lemon has said he was there to report, not to join the protesters. He has described his actions as documentation only, with no connection to the organizers. DOJ officials, though, have pointed to his visibility in footage and posts as a factor that could have contributed to the disruption or helped spread the protest’s message.

What Happened at Cities Church and Why It Escalated

The Cities Church incident fit into a wider pattern of activism aimed at institutions seen as tied to federal immigration enforcement. Protesters argued that the pastor’s alleged ICE-related work made the church a proper place for confrontation.

People attending the service described a different experience. Several said they felt startled and unsafe when the group entered, and some called the moment loud and intimidating.

Federal authorities have framed the incident as a possible violation of religious freedom protections. That can include laws related to interfering with the free exercise of religion, along with other federal offenses that may apply depending on the facts.

Under Dhillon, the Civil Rights Division has put added focus on threats and disruptions involving houses of worship. The Minnesota protest is being treated as part of a rise in confrontations that, in the DOJ’s view, ignore constitutional limits.

Dhillon’s public comments also match a broader law-and-order approach to protests that officials see as going too far. Her promise to track down “every single person” suggests a wide investigation.

That type of work often includes reviewing video, checking social media, and collecting witness statements. Legal observers say charges against people who physically disrupted the service may be easier to pursue, but trying to extend liability to a journalist raises serious First Amendment issues.

Don Lemon Pushes Back Against DOJ, Press Groups Raise Concerns

Lemon has pushed back hard against the DOJ’s tone. In public remarks, he has challenged prosecutors to move forward and joked that they could “make me the next Jimmy Kimmel,” pointing to other high-profile media names caught up in legal fights. He has said he acted as an observer and reporter, and he has warned that targeting journalists for covering controversial events can chill reporting.

Press freedom advocates have also reacted with concern. Groups that monitor media rights say prosecutors should be careful about treating on-the-ground reporting as criminal conduct. They argue that houses of worship should be protected from disruptions, but journalists also have rights when they’re gathering news. Lemon’s legal team has reportedly prepared arguments focused on his lack of direct participation in the protest.

DOJ Investigation Continues After Court Setbacks

Even with Dhillon’s strong statements, the DOJ has faced obstacles in court. A federal magistrate judge recently declined the department’s initial attempt to bring charges against Lemon, citing a lack of evidence that he had criminal intent or took part beyond recording what happened. Some charges against certain protesters were also reduced or stopped at early stages, although at least three arrests connected to the event have been reported.

Justice Department leaders have said they plan to keep pursuing the case. Dhillon repeated that the effort would continue aggressively, signaling the department doesn’t plan to drop it quickly.

It remains unclear whether prosecutors will pursue indictments against Lemon or others, but the incident has already fueled a national argument about where to draw lines between religious liberty, the right to protest, and protections for the press.

Dhillon’s stance fits the administration’s focus on defending institutions it sees as under attack from aggressive activism. Critics see it differently. They say enforcement can look selective, with more attention on left-leaning protests while other disruptions get less scrutiny. The Minnesota church case, they argue, shows how public protests are spilling into private and sacred spaces, raising legal and cultural tensions at the same time.

As investigators keep working, the case will likely stay in the spotlight. Dhillon’s message has been clear: the DOJ wants to examine everyone involved, and Don Lemon remains a central figure because of his presence and coverage during the church disruption.

Related News:

Federal Agents Arrest Three Following St. Paul Church Disruption

Up Next

AG Pam Bondi Accuses Walz and Frey of Protecting Violet Criminals

Don't Miss

Trump Slams Canada at Davos, Tells Prime Minister Mark Carney to “Be Grateful”

News

U.S. Forces Hit and Destroy 16 Iranian Mine-Laying Boats Near the Strait of Hormuz

Published

46 seconds ago

March 11, 2026

VORNews

U.S. Forces Hit and Destroy 16 Iranian Mine-Laying Boats

Washington, D.C.- U.S. forces destroyed 16 Iranian mine-laying vessels near the Strait of Hormuz near Iran, according to U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM). The strikes took place on March 10 and focused on boats officials said posed a near-term risk to commercial and military traffic in the area.

CENTCOM shared the announcement on X (formerly Twitter) and posted a video of the operation. The footage shows repeated precision hits on Iranian naval craft, with clear impacts and blasts. Several targets look stationary in the clips. The message from the U.S. is clear: it intends to keep shipping moving through the Strait of Hormuz, where about one-fifth of the world’s crude oil travels each day.

The operation followed strong public warnings from President Donald Trump, who said Iran must not mine the waterway. On Truth Social, Trump wrote that the U.S. had already “hit, and completely destroyed, 10 inactive mine laying boats and/or ships, with more to follow.” He also said any mines placed in the strait must be removed right away. Otherwise, he warned of “military consequences at a level never seen before.”

Those statements came as reports circulated that Iranian forces had begun placing naval mines. Soon after, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth backed up the White House position on X. He said CENTCOM was “eliminating inactive mine-laying vessels” with “ruthless precision” under the president’s direct orders. He added that the U.S. won’t allow “terrorists to hold the Strait of Hormuz hostage.”

Key takeaways from the strike

Timing and scale: The strikes happenedon March 10, 2026, and hit multiple Iranian vessels, including 16 mine-layers.
CENTCOM confirmation: CENTCOM posted about the action on X and included video of the strikes near the Strait of Hormuz.
Trump’s role: Trump first reported 10 destroyed vessels, then later statements and reporting reflected a total of 16.
Why it matters: The action targets a mine threat that could endanger or slow commercial shipping in a major energy route.
Wider conflict: The strikes fit into broader U.S.-Iran fighting, with reports of thousands of U.S. strikes on Iranian targets since late February 2026.
Iran’s position: Tehran has threatened to block Gulf oil exports in response, raising concerns about a wider regional crisis.

The Strait of Hormuz sits between Iran and Oman and remains one of the most tense hotspots in the Middle East. If traffic there gets blocked or tightly restricted, oil prices could spike fast, and the shock could spread through the global economy.

What the video shows and why the targets mattered

In the footage CENTCOM released, U.S. munitions hit several Iranian vessels one after another. Fires and secondary blasts follow some impacts, which suggests heavy damage. Officials described the targets as mine layers that could place naval mines in shipping lanes. Although some were labeled “inactive,” U.S. leaders treated them as a ready threat because they could move quickly once ordered.

U.S. forces have hit Iranian maritime assets in the region before. One often-cited example is the 1988 Operation Praying Mantis, when the U.S. Navy attacked Iranian platforms and vessels after a mine damaged a U.S. frigate.

By knocking out the mine-laying boats, the U.S. says it’s protecting freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. Officials have also signaled they may escort commercial tankers if threats continue. Meanwhile, energy markets have moved sharply as traders watch for the next step on both sides.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards have promised countermoves, including threats to choke off Gulf oil routes. If disruptions drag on, analysts warn crude prices could climb quickly, and supply chains could face a new strain.

News

CBS Caught Making Deceptive EDIT to 60 Minutes Interview With Hegseth

Published

1 day ago

March 10, 2026

VORNews

WASHINGTON, D.C.– CBS is taking heat over an edit in its 60 Minutes interview with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. The dispute centers on a segment that aired March 8, 2026, during the ongoing U.S. conflict with Iran. In the broadcast, correspondent Major Garrett pressed Hegseth on U.S. foreign policy priorities.

On March 9, Megyn Kelly opened The Megyn Kelly Show on SiriusXM by pointing to what she called a key change. She said CBS replaced Garrett’s original question, which referenced criticism from “America First” voices (including Kelly), with a version framed around Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In Kelly’s view, that swap changed the meaning of Hegseth’s answer and could have given viewers a different impression of what was being discussed.

The Interview Setting: The U.S.-Iran War and Hegseth’s Message

The 60 Minutes segment featured Hegseth, a former Fox News host who now serves as Defense Secretary under President Donald Trump. He spoke about the escalation tied to “Operation Epic Fury.” By the time the episode aired, U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iranian assets had entered their second week. During the interview, Hegseth stressed resolve, said more casualties were likely, and predicted Iran would eventually surrender.

CBS also posted a longer version of the interview online. That extended cut includes more on possible American losses, risks tied to Russia, and the administration’s wider goals.

What Kelly Says CBS Changed

Kelly said she compared the on-air segment with the longer online interview and found a major difference in one exchange.

Broadcast version (aired on 60 Minutes): In the edited segment, Garrett’s question (or narration around it) referenced criticism that Israel, or Netanyahu, was pulling the United States into conflict. Hegseth’s response then appeared to address concerns linked to Israel’s role.
Online extended version (full exchange): Garrett asked, “You mentioned America First. Some who identify with that movement, Megyn Kelly, Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Marjorie Taylor Greene, have said, from their perspective, this isn’t an America First campaign. Do you want to address that criticism?”Hegseth answered, “All I know is I’m in the room every day, and I see how President Trump operates and what he’s putting first, and it’s America, Americans, and American interests at every level.”

Kelly said the broadcast edit pushed Israel into a moment that, in the longer cut, had nothing to do with Israel. She argued that the new framing made it sound like Hegseth was defending Israel’s part in the war, instead of answering “America First” critics. Kelly called the change “deceptive” and said it looked like an attempt to “rehabilitate” public views of Israel’s involvement in the Iran fight.

“What kind of bulls–t is this?” Kelly reportedly said, accusing CBS of shaping the narrative through editing.

CBS Editing Choices Get Fresh Scrutiny

As of March 10, 2026, CBS had not released a formal statement addressing the claim. Still, the network’s decision to publish the extended interview online made it easy for viewers to compare both versions. That side-by-side access helped drive the backlash.

Kelly and other critics tied the issue to bigger arguments about media bias. Some also pointed to CBS News leadership under editor-in-chief Bari Weiss, whom they described as having pro-Israel views. Kelly argued the edit fit an agenda that casts U.S. actions as tied closely to Israeli interests, even when the original exchange did not focus on that angle.

60 Minutes has faced similar complaints before. Past disputes have accused the program of selective editing in political interviews, which has kept questions about transparency alive.

Reactions and the Bigger Stakes

The clip dispute quickly spread across media outlets and social platforms.

Conservative voices praised Kelly and said the edit showed how mainstream outlets treat “America First” views.
Others defended CBS, saying edits are normal when a long interview must fit a tight broadcast window.
Some supporters of the administration said it looked like another attempt to weaken Trump’s foreign policy message.

Because the U.S. military campaign is active, the timing matters. Hegseth’s appearance was meant to project strength and certainty. Instead, the argument over editing shifted attention to media trust and how much framing can change what viewers take away.

Kelly ended by urging people to watch both versions. She stressed that, in her view, “The Q&A you saw never mentioned Israel at all,” and said CBS changed the question to make it about Israel.

What It Means for Media Trust

With audiences already split along political lines, even small shifts in wording can fuel bigger mistrust. When a network changes the framing of a question, it can look like agenda-driven editing, even if the rest of the answer stays the same. CBS’s release of the full interview gives the public a way to verify what happened. At the same time, it shows how a broadcast cut can reshape the story people think they heard.

As the Iran conflict continues, both the war itself and the coverage around it will draw more scrutiny. For now, the Hegseth interview has become another flashpoint in the fight over fairness, accuracy, and where editing ends and manipulation begins.

News

Trump Praises Albanese Over Giving Iranian Women Footballers Asylum

Published

1 day ago

March 10, 2026

VORNews

Trump praises Albanese in call over Iranian women footballers

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Donald Trump praised Anthony Albanese for his response to the situation, saying he is doing a “very good job,” for granting the Iranian Women’s Soccer Players asylum in Australia after their Gold Coast Escape.

During the AFC Women’s Asian Cup 2026, five players from Iran’s national women’s soccer team have received humanitarian visas that let them stay in Australia. They approached the Australian Federal Police (AFP) after breaking away from team minders and asking for protection.

The athletes named in reports are Captain Zahra Ghanbari, Fatemeh Pasandideh, Zahra Sarbali, Atefeh Ramazanzadeh, and Mona Hamoudi. They left their Gold Coast hotel on Monday night, March 9, 2026.

Soon after, officers moved them to a secure location. Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke met with them late that night, then approved the visas around 1:30 a.m. Tuesday.

They say they feared persecution if they returned to Iran. Concerns grew after Iran’s opening match against South Korea, when the team stood silent during the national anthem. Many saw that silence as a protest during a tense period, including the ongoing US-Israel conflict involving Iran.

After that match, Iranian state television called the players “wartime traitors” and accused them of reaching “the pinnacle of dishonour.” At the same time, conservative voices pushed for harsh punishment.

Because of those comments, human rights advocates and members of the Iranian diaspora warned that the players could face prison, torture, or worse if forced to go home.

In later matches against Australia and the Philippines, the squad sang and saluted during the anthem. Even so, some observers believed officials traveling with the team pressured them to comply.

Trump praises Albanese in call over Iranian women footballers

Escape From the Hotel and AFP Support

Reports say the five women slipped away from minders at the Royal Pines Resort. Australian authorities had kept a police presence at the hotel for days. As a result, players had a way to seek help quietly if they chose to.

AFP response: Officers escorted the women out and took them to a safe location.
Humanitarian visas: Officials issued the visas quickly after security checks, allowing the players to live, work, and study in Australia.
Tony Burke’s comments: “They are safe here, they are welcome to stay in Australia, and they should feel at home here,” Burke said at a press conference. He also said the offer remains open to other team members who ask for help.

Meanwhile, protests formed outside the team hotel as the remaining squad prepared to leave for Iran. Demonstrators shouted “save our girls” and briefly blocked a bus. Some videos appeared to show players signaling distress from inside the vehicles.

rump praises Albanese in call over Iranian women footballers

International Spotlight After Trump and Albanese Speak

The situation quickly became a diplomatic issue. US President Donald Trump called Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in the early morning hours, around 2 a.m. local time. Trump urged Australia to grant asylum and said sending the players back would be a “terrible humanitarian mistake.”

Before the call, Trump posted on social media criticizing any forced return. He also suggested the US would consider asylum if Australia refused. After speaking with Albanese, Trump praised his handling of what he called a “delicate situation.” He also said five players had been “taken care of.”

Albanese called the athletes “brave.” He added that Australia stands ready to assist other players if they come forward.

Wider Context and Ongoing Safety Concerns

Iran’s participation in the tournament happened during a period of regional unrest. That backdrop added to fears about what could happen to the players once they returned home. Groups such as FIFPRO, the global players’ union, raised alarms. Exiled Iranian figures, including Reza Pahlavi, also drew attention to the defections.

Australia’s quick decision stood out because the country is known for tough border rules. Still, officials pointed to Australia’s humanitarian responsibilities under international law. They also repeated that protection remains available to any other squad members who request it.

As of March 10, 2026, reports said the remaining players were still at the Gold Coast hotel, with some expected to fly back to Iran. The five who sought asylum reportedly celebrated after receiving approval, chanting “Aussie, Aussie, Aussie!”

The episode shows how sport, politics, and human rights can collide fast. What started as a silent gesture on the field turned into a global asylum story within days.