I Didn't Want Protesters Invading That Church. I Don't Want ICE Infiltrating This One Either.

Somewhat against the grain of my progressive political peers, I was not at all a fan of protesters entering and disrupting Cities Church worship back in January of 2026, even though I share much of their opposition to ICE and alarm that a pastor at that church was a leader in ICE operation.

Now more with the grain of my political peers, I’m also not a fan of AP reports that DHS's Minnesota operation infiltrated lawful meetings of progressive organizations, including meetings held in churches, even though the government is claiming “legitimate” law enforcement purposes.

This is, I think, a rather consistent First Amendment argument. Free exercise of our religion isn’t very meaningful if it’s only protected when we approve of the religion. And free exercise isn’t very meaningful if actually it’s not free and instead is being surveilled and patrolled.

Call me a First Amendment purist if you want, but I’m arguing we should be consistent on this.

“So what happened? Court filings show undercover agents posed as protesters inside the buildings. They also monitored encrypted group chats, wore hidden audio recorders into “know your rights” trainings, and even logged license plate numbers outside the church properties.

The operations took place between December 2025 and May 2026. All of this conflicted with a high-profile national lawsuit led by the Democracy Forward legal coalition protecting regional synods of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and Baptist churches from warrantless DHS enforcement and investigations.”

The infiltration of University Baptist Church in Dinkytown was especially alarming, as they specifically “won the temporary injunction in the District of Massachusetts in February 2026 against the Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies forbidding the department from taking “immigration enforcement action at any of their churches. That injunction signed by U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV includes banning “arrest, seizure, search, interrogation, questioning, interview or investigation.”

Given that I’m a leftist who doesn’t want the government infiltrating leftist churches (I’m no longer confident, to be honest, that they aren’t already doing it to our church1), my alarm at the surveillance may not surprise you. But I think it’s equally important for me to argue that churches who aren’t leftist should also be protected on First Amendment grounds, and for precisely the same reasons.

I no more want the government surveilling me than I do outside organizations watching me and then marching in to disrupt our worship.

A church ought to be able to gather as a church without outside political actors invading that space. Outside political actors of any kind. Full stop.