Masterminds ARRESTED – Church Invasion Backfires

Federal authorities arrested two organizers of a St. Paul church disruption in just four days, signaling a dramatic shift in how the Trump administration will protect religious spaces from activist interference.

Quick Take

On January 18, 2026, dozens of anti-ICE protesters stormed Cities Church in St. Paul during Sunday services, chanting and intimidating congregants including children
The protest targeted Pastor David Easterwood, who serves as acting director of the ICE St. Paul field office, creating an unprecedented conflict between his religious and federal roles
Federal authorities arrested civil rights lawyer Nekima Levy Armstrong and St. Paul School Board member Chauntyll Louisa Allen on January 22 under the FACE Act, historically used against abortion clinic protesters
The swift arrests and FACE Act charges represent an expansion of religious protections and signal zero tolerance for worship disruptions under the current administration

A Church Becomes Ground Zero for Immigration Activism

The January 18 invasion of Cities Church wasn’t your typical protest march. Dozens of activists physically entered the sanctuary during Sunday services, screaming at worshippers and chanting slogans like “ICE out” and “Justice for Renee Good.” Children sat terrified in the pews. Adults were intimidated. The church’s statement later called it shameful and unlawful—an invasion protected by neither Christian scripture nor American law.

The Conflict That Started It All

Pastor David Easterwood holds two jobs that collide spectacularly. He leads Cities Church while simultaneously serving as acting director of the ICE St. Paul field office. For activists opposed to immigration enforcement, this dual role represents an intolerable conflict of interest. Easterwood had recently defended aggressive ICE tactics in court filings, including license plate swaps and chemical irritants used during enforcement operations. The church became a target because of who stood at its pulpit.

The Architect Behind the Disruption

Nekima Levy Armstrong, a civil rights lawyer and ordained reverend since 2016, leads the Racial Justice Network and has a documented history of far-left activism. She’s boycotted Target over DEI cuts and organized protests across the Twin Cities. When ICE enforcement intensified in Minnesota under the Trump administration, Armstrong mobilized. On January 20, she posted on Facebook accusing Easterwood of conflict of interest and called for his resignation, organizing alongside BLM Minnesota co-founder Monique Cullers.

Federal Response: Swift and Decisive

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announced arrests were coming on January 20, giving activists a two-day warning. By January 22 morning, Attorney General Pam Bondi directed FBI and HSI agents to execute arrests. Armstrong was taken first, followed by Chauntyll Louisa Allen, a St. Paul School Board member who served as co-organizer. Both faced charges under the FACE Act—the Federal Access to Clinic Entrances Act, originally designed to protect abortion clinics from disruption.

A Precedent That Changes Everything

The FACE Act application marks a significant expansion of federal law. For decades, it protected reproductive health clinics. Now it protects churches. This shift signals the Trump administration’s determination to shield religious spaces from activist interference, regardless of the protesters’ political motivation. The message is clear: disrupting worship carries federal consequences. Federal Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon hinted at this broader application, flipping the law’s historical use.

Think Don Lemon is nervous? Heh.

GAME OVER! FBI Just Arrested 'Masterminds' Who Thought Storming St. Paul Cities Church Was a Good Ideahttps://t.co/vRuzlKLcvz pic.twitter.com/KuIH9Fe5Rp

— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) January 22, 2026

What began as a Sunday morning disruption has evolved into a test case for how far federal law will stretch to protect religious exercise. The arrests happened in four days. The precedent will last far longer. For readers watching the intersection of activism, religious freedom, and federal power, this case deserves close attention as courts determine whether the FACE Act truly applies beyond clinics to churches—and what that means for future protests.