This article reports on a disruption of a St. Paul church service by anti-ICE protesters, reactions from media figures, the church’s public statement defending worshippers and citing legal options, and the broader point that unlawful disruptions can carry consequences.

MN Church Stormed by Anti-ICE Agitators Releases Statement Showing Their Actions May Have Consequences

What happened in St. Paul was shocking: a group interrupted a church service, creating a chaotic scene while worship was underway. Witnesses say the intruders targeted the congregation because they believed a pastor had ties to ICE, though that claim appears unfounded.

The disruption startled people gathered to worship and frightened children, turning a sacred assembly into a spectacle. For many attendees, the incident felt like an attack on religious freedom and on the quiet dignity of a community trying to gather around faith.

Disrupting prayer time in a house of worship crosses a long-held line for most Americans, and it drew sharp criticism from locals and observers. Beyond moral objections, there is the legal side: entering a service to intimidate or scare worshippers can trigger civil or criminal responses.

Media coverage amplified the controversy, with a well-known former network personality present and later offering harsh commentary about parishioners. Those remarks included accusations that worshippers were “entitled” and tied to “white supremacy,” comments that many found inflammatory and irrelevant to the incident at hand.

The church at the center of this episode, Cities Church in St. Paul, issued a formal response defending its members and explaining why the interruption was unacceptable. Their statement framed worship as central to their identity and emphasized both the sanctity of their gatherings and their commitment to community welfare.

In a public message, church leaders described how the disruption unfolded: agitators accosted congregants, frightened children, and created an atmosphere of intimidation. The leaders labeled the conduct “shameful” and said such actions are neither condoned by Scripture nor protected under the rule of law in a free society.

Jesus is real. When we gather on Sunday mornings to worship him, we are gladly giving ourselves to what is most central and sacred in our life together. “We worship Jesus” stretches as the main banner of our church, alongside two other pursuits that flow from it: loving one another and seeking the good of the Twin Cities.

On Sunday, January 18, a group of agitators jarringly disrupted our worship gathering. They accosted members of our congregation, frightened children, and created a scene marked by intimidation and threat. Such conduct is shameful, unlawful, and will not be tolerated. Invading a church service to disrupt the worship of Jesus — or any other act of worship — is protected by neither the Christian Scriptures nor the laws of this nation.

We welcome respectful dialogue about present issues, and about how the realness of Jesus, as revealed in the Bible, provides the only final answers to the world’s most complex and intractable problems.

Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God, lived, died, and rose again for the rescue of all who put their faith in him. He offers a love that transcends cultures, borders, policies, and politics. As those who have been loved and rescued by him, we will not shrink from worshiping Jesus, nor will we stop “teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Messiah” (Acts 5:42). Church buildings are meant to be places of peace and solace, where worshipers can hear and live out this message. We therefore call on local, state, and national leaders to protect this fundamental right.

The church made clear it is open to respectful conversation about public policy and faith, but it drew a line at coercion and intimidation inside a place of worship. Their message stressed that the gospel they preach aims to transcend politics and to heal, not to stoke division.

Importantly, the leaders concluded by signaling possible legal action: they are consulting counsel and exploring next steps. That notice put intruders and anyone who funds or coordinates such disruptions on clear legal and practical notice that there may be consequences.

We are evaluating next steps with our legal counsel.

For congregants and community members, the prospect of legal follow-through offers a path to accountability beyond the immediate shock of the incident. When gatherings meant for solace and worship get turned into confrontations, civil remedies can serve both justice and deterrence.

The episode has also sparked debate about media responsibility and the tone of public discussion around protests and church life. When commentators choose to amplify slurs or simplistic labels, it deepens the wound rather than helping repair trust between neighbors.

At the same time, officials and citizens are watching how local and federal authorities will respond to protect lawful assembly and religious exercise. The intersection of protest tactics, civil liberties, and public order is messy, but the right to worship without fear is a clear baseline for a functioning society.