It's Monday, February 2nd, 2026. I'm Albert Moller, and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. It was two weeks ago yesterday, January 18, that a leftist activist mob invaded an evangelical congregation on the Lord's Day interrupting worship, deliberately interrupting worship for the purpose of a political protest. That political protest was occasion, said the activists by the fact that one of the elders or pastors of the church is the acting field director for ICE, the immigration, customs enforcement agency. And now we know, and it's been headline news all over the country, what exactly took place. And we know it not only because we have heard of it, not only because we have read of it, but because there is extensive video of it, and that becomes a crucial issue. So one of the things that we knew almost immediately is that this was just grotesquely, morally wrong. Here you had a political mob invading an evangelical church at worship. Now, there are many different contexts in which those kinds of protests can be done. There is certain constitutional protection, but there is no constitutional right to go into a place of worship and interrupt it for your political protest period. There is no such right. As a matter of fact, that should be recognized just with the US Constitution. But beyond that, it is also now enshrined in a federal act. And here's the irony, the federal act was originally intended by the left to protect abortion clinics and to prevent protesters from at least going into and stopping what takes place in an abortion clinic. So here's the irony. Congress added religious worship spaces and worship to the same category. It's the face act as it is known. And federal authorities made very clear the assisted attorney general, eventually the attorney general of the United States, Pambondi, make clear that there would be criminal charges. Now one of the most interesting questions all along is, of course, what about Don Lemon? Because Don Lemon was really central to the story from the beginning. Don Lemon intended to be central in the story from the beginning. Don Lemon was for many years a host on CNN. And he was a pretty well known, a man of the left. He had served in television broadcasting in different places around the country, including Birmingham, Alabama. And yet then he was a CNN. He had what was basically a prime time slot. And he had a lot of influence. He became well known as a cultural figure, an African-American man and openly gay man married to another man. He clearly had established a pretty substantial reputation, but he was released by CNN. Let's just say they severed ties. And the big question, at least for Don Lemon is what is he going to do. So he established his own media company. And I'm not going to give more information because I'm not trying to get in business. But the bottom line is that he says he was functioning as a journalist. And he says he was doing what he always has done as a journalist. And that is follow the story and tell the story. But you know from the very beginning of this story, it was clear that Don Lemon wasn't just a journalist following a story. He was part of the story. It was also abundantly clear that he intended to be part of the story. And so here's where some really interesting actual journalism comes in. The Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, all of run major pieces on what exactly took place. Now in a piece at the New York Times, and I'm mentioning that paper because of its reputation, the headline is Don Lemon released without bond over Minnesota protest charge. Team of reporters here. And what they tell us is that Don Lemon and three other people now been arrested on charges. They violated federal law during a protest at the church in St. Paul, Minnesota. They had to face a court hearing on Friday. They were then released on their own recognizance. Quote, Don Lemon vowed to fight the charges after he and a group of journalists and activists were indicted by a grand jury in federal district court in Minnesota. They were charged with a conspiracy to deprive the congregants of the church of their rights and to interfere with religious freedom and a house of worship, reviving a case that was rejected last week by a magistrate judge. Now, was it rejected last week? Yes it was. But now you have a federal appeals court that has put it back in place. And you know, there's a lot of substance here. There's a lot of publicity here, a lot of controversy here. And there's publicity and controversy. There's not always substance. But in this case, I believe there is real substance. Now I went to get the actual document. In this case, it is the indictment. It's on multiple counts. And by the way, this is the kind of public document you can go find if you're sufficiently interested. So I got the document. I read every word of it. And the indictment mentions the persons who are here being charged. It says that the context is that there was basically this invasion. I'll just put it this way. It says, on the morning of Sunday, January 18, 2026, at approximately 1030 AM, the church is pastor that city's church, St. Paul, Minnesota was leading the congregation in a liturgical service. Now there's irony there because Baptists are not known for being particularly liturgical nor evangelicals. That is used here, not in a theological sense in which case is kind of a sliding scale, but in a legal sense. So this is a word, meaning this was a religious, this was a, this was an official service. Quote, in that service, the church's pastor and congregation were then exercising and seeking to exercise the first amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship, a right that is also protected by a federal statute codified at Title 18, United States Code section 248. That's the kind of specificity. You have to have in this kind of indictment. Point three, after the service commenced a group of approximately 20 to 40 agitators, including all the defendants named in this indictment, entered the church and a coordinated takeover style attack and engaged in acts of oppression, intimidation, threats, interference, and physical obstruction alleged herein. Gotta love the language. Now, when you look at an indictment like this, well, you know, there's a certain sense in which you just know you have to say every single time this is a set of charges, not yet proved in court, every defendant, everyone charged with this kind of criminal charge facing this kind of indictment deserves his or her day in court. And it is the government that has to prove the case. The defendant does not have to prove his or her innocence. That's just part of our legal system, our constitutional system. But when you look at this indictment, it's really clear the federal government, the Department of Justice is throwing a lot of weight into this. Again, listen to those words, coordinated takeover style attack, acts of oppression, intimidation threats, interference, and physical obstruction. Now in a legal context, every single one of those words is important. And when you look at something like this, you recognize that one or more or several of these words individually or together could trigger any number of different legal arguments. Taken together, pretty comprehensive acts of oppression, intimidation, threats, interference, physical obstruction, physical obstruction is really very important here. They physically obstructed a congregation at worship. That is, that's an interesting tripwire. Quote, as a result of the defendant's conduct, the pastor in congregation were forced to terminate the church's worship service. Congress gets fled the church building out of fear for their safety. Other congregants took steps to implement an emergency plan and young children were left to wonder as one child put it if their parents were going to die. End quote, to all this is in the indictment. They also go on to charge conspiracy. They say the object of this conspiracy was to deprive this church of its right to worship. One of the defendants listed under one section here is very important to section B on page four of the indictment under manner and means. You had Donald Leman mentioned in the indictment specifically on this charge. Once at the church, quote, all the defendants entered the church to conduct a takeover style attack and engaged in various acts and furtherance of the conspiracy. End quote, Leman's mentioned along with others. End quote, Leman's mentioned in the indictment under manner and the indictment under another paragraph. Donald Leman, remember, is saying that he's just a journalist. He's protected by the First Amendment because he wasn't there as one of those who were involved in the takeover. He was simply there as a journalist and he's invoking First Amendment rights in terms of the freedom of the press. And by the way, those are incredibly substantial. And federal courts have backed that up with all kinds of precedent. But here's the thing. If you saw the video, then you know it's impossible that Donald Leman was just a journalist. He was pressing the case. And furthermore, it is alleged in these charges that he was a part of the conspiracy to interrupt this church. He wasn't just an observer. And now more on that in a moment. But he's also mentioned later where we are told that at the pre-operation briefing, defendants in this includes Donald Leman. And I advised other co-conspirators, including defendants listed other names, about the target of their operation and provider instruction on how the operation will be conducted once they arrive to the church. Donald Leman in comments published in various news reports as he was just there as an observer as a journalist. Okay, he began streaming this on his internet based show, The Don Lemon Show. It's very interesting. Now listen to this quote. This is speaking about Don Leman in particular. He explained to his audience that he was in Minnesota with an organization that was gearing up for a resistance operation against the federal government's immigration policies. And he took steps to maintain operational secrecy by reminding certain co-conspirators to not disclose the target of the operation and stepped away momentarily. So his mic would not accidentally divulge certain portions of the planning session. Now all this to say is that those who saw the video, and I think honestly a fair-minded person would look at that and say, Don Leman, it wasn't just some kind of disinterested observer. But you know, there's precedent that goes even beyond that when it comes to actions of the press. It goes back to various points in American history. Very clearly goes back to the 1960s and the riots and the protests of the 1960s where there were very liberal reporters and liberal media figures who were, I think, in a similar kind of position. And honestly, the federal government's facing a significant challenge. I think they're absolutely right to bring these charges more in just a moment. But I think it's just important to recognize that courts are extremely protective of whatever is claimed as a journalistic freedom of the press. However, I just want you to think about that video and recognize there's a very thin line between reporting on something being sympathetic to the ones you're covering and becoming an active co-conspirator. And that is exactly what the federal government is alleging about Don Leman's activity in this. Now, what are the conspiratorial aspects of all of this? Are just comments that appear Don Leman said to one of the activists at one point quote, we can't say too much, we don't want to give it up. You know, again, it's just, it's hard to see how he can separate himself from the activists in this story. But again, he's not being tried by me. He's not being tried by the audience to the briefing. He's going to be tried by a jury of his peers in terms of federal court. If indeed it reaches the trial stage. Another charge over at number 15, he's included in a group that quote, oppressed, threatened, and intimidated the church's congregants and pastors by physically occupying most of the main aisle and rows of chairs near the front of the church, engaging in menacing and threatening behavior for some chanting and yelling loudly at the pastor and congregants and or physically obstructing them as they attempted to exit and or move about within the church. And overt act number 18, they discuss this as a disruptive takeover operation. And this goes on and on. Now some of the things you may not have known, this is not about Don Leman, but another one of the co-defendants, we are told that this individual disrupted the service by chanting, quote, this ain't God's house. This is the house of the devil. Be this defended, approached one female congregant who was with two young children and demanded to know in a hostile manner why she was not involved in and supportive of the takeover operation and see screamed Nazi and congregants faces and asked child congregants, do you know your parents are Nazis? They are going to burn in hell. Under overt act number 28, Don Leman's included with others in the charge that Leman in particular peppered the pastor with questions to promote the operations message over act number 24, while talking with the pastor, defendant Don Leman stood so close to the pastor that Leman caused the pastor's right hand to graze Leman who then admonished the pastor, please don't push me. End quote. The point here is that Don Leman's accused of just putting himself physically right up against the pastor. Over act number 25, although the pastor told Leman and the others to leave the church, defendant Leman and the other defendants ignored the pastor's request and did not immediately leave the church. You know, there's more here as you could imagine, again, overt act. That's a legal category. It's very, very interesting. And there's more. That was just on one count there, other counts and they are signed. And of course, this is now a matter of court action. It's just very interesting to have the documentation here about the statements made to children there in the church. Now clearly, my main concern is with the integrity of this Christian church and the integrity of Christian worship. Institutional issues are for the court paramount. For Christians, the theological issues are paramount. The freedom of a gospel congregation to worship according to its own convictions and to declare the gospel without fear of interference. And one of the things I have heard just over the last few days are people saying, look, this is what this is what protests do. They're about disruptions. Don Leman at one point said the purpose is to disrupt. Well, you don't have a constitutional right to enter into a church's place of worship and disrupt worship. That is not a constitutional right. As a matter of fact, it is direct interference and over-attack with a fundamental constitutional right, which is the freedom of worship and the freedom of religious assembly. So you look at this and you recognize these are huge issues. They really are. You could say, well, this is just one incident that created headlines almost immediately. I'm so thankful for the faithfulness of this church, the faithfulness of this pastor, the faithfulness of these people. I can imagine that these children are going to be traumatized for a very, very long time. And I think this is one of the issues that among evangelicals can disappear too quickly. And I don't mean just in terms of controversy or even just legal actions that are necessary. I think it can just kind of move off the screen of our attentiveness to the fact that eventually if every single church is doing its job, it is at least likely to face something like this at some point sometime in the future. And I guess the big issue for evangelical Christians is figuring out right now how you're going to handle it when it happens. And right now how you're going to depend upon other Christians for support when this happens. And we need to keep this very much in mind and not let this pass from our attention. There are other things in all of this that we will discuss subsequently. But for right now, let's just make certain we keep our eyes fundamentally on the importance of these issues. I also think one thing Christians have to watch is how the mainstream media immediately, immediately coalesce and say this is an issue fundamentally oppressed freedom. And they have the microphone or in the case of Don Limit, they have the video cameras. And they have the platform. And we need to be very clear that they're coming at this with their own worldview. All right, other big news over the weekend on Friday, President Trump announced his choice to be the new chairman of the Federal Reserve. And that man whose name is Kevin M. Warsh is likely to face a good deal of attention in coming months. The current Fed chair, Jerome Powell, who's appointed by President Trump in his first term to the president's great frustration, his term as chairman in May. And the thus President Trump made this appointment. He clearly is anticipating a change at the Fed with the appointment of Kevin M. Warsh. But President Trump also knows he's made an appointment with a lot of experience and credibility. He's a graduate of Stanford University, standout student, a graduate of Harvard Law School. He however is really well trained in economics. He worked with the Fed. It was a major official at the Fed credited with a great deal of management ability and economic strategy, particularly in the aftermath of the 2008 stock market crash. And the financial crisis. And so he was known then as a man with a very cool head. He has one in this job. He was one of the finalists. The first time President Trump had the opportunity to name a chairman. By the way, they're appointed for a five year term. They can serve another five year term. So you can do the math. It was 10 years ago that President Trump appointed Jerome Powell. Since then, I think just about every single day President Trump has regretted that appointment. And there is no doubt that he is in a major face off with Jerome Powell and it has been for a long time. And the main issue is a disagreement of the federal funds rate. That is the big thing because that is the interest rate set by the Fed. And it's an interesting little footnote here. What interest rate does the federal reserve? But what interest rate does it set? It's the federal funds rate. That is the amount of interest banks are charged for borrowing overnight. Okay. How's that for a technical issue? But it becomes the base rate for other interest rates. And so when you have the federal fund rate, go up. Interst rates are going to go up when you have the federal funds rate go down by action of the federal reserve board of governors. Then you have the interest rates go down. Now President Trump wants interest rates down. Now let me just give you a basic political fact. Every president wants low interest rates. And it's because nothing really juices an economy like low interest rates because this has to do with the cost of money. The cost of money has to do with the interest rate. The higher the interest rate, the higher the cost of money, the higher the cost of money, you have an incentive for disinvestment and a lack of economic expansion. Presidents want a lot of investment. They want a lot of spending and they want a lot of economic expansion. And voters, American citizens like an economy that's in an expansive mode. They don't like one that's contracting because in an expansive mode, the economy does well. They are paid more. And even as the economy is expanding, there is just more economic energy. And especially on the price scale, even as prices go up so long as income is going up commensurately, you do not have a crisis or a perception of affordability. So all that to say, presidents want lots of, they want the arrow and the chart going up. They want the arrow pointing up to the upper right. The last thing they want is pointing down to the lower right as in a declining economy, a recession or even worse, a depression. But frankly, economics follows cycles and we're in a rather long cycle of expansion right now. But President Trump was aggravated with Jerome Powell in his first term because Jerome Powell has wanted to keep that federal funds rate high enough that it would prevent out of control inflation. Now inflation got out of control under the presidency of Joe Biden and in particular, under the context of COVID. And as you recall, President Biden, who was a big government liberal to begin with, he became an even bigger government liberal and you had vast increases in federal funding. And of course, you had such things as the addition that was given to Obamacare, those supposed to be temporary and all the rest is vast amounts of spending. And inflation was the result. Now there were other issues that for instance, supply and demand and on many issues, such as just to point out one that became a factor in the 2024 presidential election, eggs. Eggs are not produced in a factory. Eggs are produced by hens. And there are natural limitations. And of course, there was a crisis with hens. Many of them had to be destroyed because of a virus. The eggs were not available. The price of eggs went up. Americans do not like the price of eggs going up because they measured in terms of something is rather subjective in terms of affordability. But okay. So by the way, the prime lending rate, which as you know is kind of the base rate for all lending, including consumer lending is generally, not always, but generally 3% over the federal fund rate. So if you have a discount on the federal funds rate, that's what the Fed does, then you often have interstates go down. And again, that usually juices the economy. It's what President Trump wants. President Trump wants it. He wants it with a little more energy than a lot of presidents. And he also recognizes that he does not want a business cycle in which there is a downturn just as he enters into midterm elections. And frankly, as he is looking eventually at the last couple years of his second term in office, so that's understandable. But the federal reserve, some of which is the federal reserve bank and the entire federal reserve system, it was established as something that wasn't to be directly under the control of the president, not directly in the executive branch. Instead, it was supposed to be something new as a part of this new administrative state. Now, that's the reason why conservatives have generally been opposed to the very existence of the Fed. It's not really politically plausible that the Fed is just going to disappear, but conservatives have long been concerned about the Fed. They're concerned that the Fed, like every other part of the administrative state, becomes self-important begins to take on too much power. They also believe that it is the source rather than the solution for a lot of economic instability. They also don't think it has many conservatives going all the way back to 1913 when the Fed came into existence. And a lot of conservatives thought there's no constitutional authority for this. The Constitution has the legislative branch and then the executive branch and the judicial branch, it doesn't have a federal reserve branch. And President Trump, like a lot of presidents, by the way, President Trump's just a little more public and loud about it, have been very frustrated with the Fed and very frustrated that the Fed can run at policies counter to the administration's own policies. And that has become quite clear in the first year and more of the Trump administration. Now, Jerome Powell is older, very established to figure in finance and economics. Remember, he was appointed to this term, to the first term by President Trump and his first administration. But almost from the beginning, he's as I said, been quite frustrated. The existence of central banks is something that really wasn't widespread until the 20th century. And given industrialization, the vast expansion in the economy, and the role of money, the federal banks became pretty important. They really started in Europe. The United States did not have a central bank of this sort. Well, this fast forward in history until the act of 1913. And there is an open markets committee of the Fed that is made up of all the governors of the Fed and then also the presidents of at least some of the regions. And so there are several different regions of the bank and there are 12 of them and a certain number of them serve on the federal open markets committee. They're the ones who vote on the interest rate. But even as the Fed chairman doesn't get to set it, you know, laterally he does have a lot of authority and influence on setting the direction of the Fed. President Trump is counting on that in his appointment at Kevin and Warsh. It's going to be very interesting to see how the Senate responds because the Senate has to confirm. As I say, conservatives have a lot of issues here. The Fed really controls, in so many ways, monetary policy in the United States. It's the way of the United States determining the value of money. And the Fed can just, well, almost literally print money. It can produce more money in response to inflation or deflation or whatever the economic conditions. It's vast power and it's not directly accountable to any branch of government and constitutionally. I do think that's a big issue. In terms of positive assignments, the Fed's priorities are established by the enacting legislation and also by economic reality. The Fed is to maximize employment, the stability of prices and to keep careful watch over the cost of money. So it is given those responsibilities and honestly, most Americans are pretty unaware of how it does that job. It's also hard to imagine at this point that the Fed would not exist. And so President Trump at the very least wants to appoint governors and in particular a chairman who are more likely to work in concert with him. Now the appointment of Kevin Warsh has been responded to by the financial authorities pretty positively because after all, he is one of them. Now with every appointment, let's just assume that the Senate confirms him. Once he is in this role, he's going to find that controlling the Fed might be a bit more challenging than he knows, but he is a pretty smooth operator. And I think he'll be able to make public arguments on behalf of the Fed more effectively than Jerome Powell. And I think that would serve the government well and would serve the Fed well. At the same time, he is coming from a position in which he at least understands conservative concerns. He understands, I think in many ways, President Trump's concerns about the Fed. But as an independent agency, again, I have huge constitutional questions about that. But as an independent agency, you know, once he is appointed by the president and once he is confirmed by the Senate, he's basically untouchable, at least on policy issues for the term. And so it's a very interesting thing. And certainly during the remainder of President Trump's term. So this is a big decision. There are big worldview issues behind it. I mean, just think of historic issues such as the gold standard, which was abandoned and all the rest. I do want to mention to you that the federal debt is a huge part of this and this is burgeoning ever-expanding federal debt. And the Benjamin Applebaum, writing it in the New York Times, has a very good statement when he says that this whole situation calls to mind the old saying that if you owe the bank $100, that's your problem. But if you owe the bank $100 million, that's the bank's problem. And at least in one sense, that pretty much describes at least one of the challenges is going to be faced by whoever is the new chairman of the Federal Reserve. I know that's one of those issues you just might not think is so important to you, but I just want to tell you what it is. I have a final word here and this is a word I just need to share from the heart. There is something right with the world when moms write me and they refer to a word that I was using and they just said that they bring it to my attention. And I'll tell you, I think upon reflection, they're right. It's not an uncouth word, but it's not a word that moms rightly want their 10-year-old stone in each other. And so I was using it as a negative term and I'm not going to use it anymore. And as I say, I just want to say there's something right about the world and very reassuring to me when moms, and then we want to feel the freedom to write me and bring that to my attention. It's a good thing for me to hear and I'll just say one final thing and that is I don't care how old a man is. When you hear a mom raise an issue like this, I don't care how old a man is, he's 12 again. And I have to think of my own godly mom. And so to all the moms who wrote me, I just want to say, and I mean this, sorry mom. Thanks for listening to the briefing. For more information, go to my website at AlbertMolar.com. You can follow me on x or twitter by going to x.com forward slash AlbertMolar. For information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to spts.edu. For information on boys college, just go to boyscovids.com. I'll meet you again tomorrow for the briefing.
