Two activists claim they were falsely labeled as terrorists by the right-wing commentator
Category: Politics
Right-wing commentator Benny Johnson is facing a defamation lawsuit from two protesters who allege he falsely portrayed them as violent extremists during an October 2025 protest outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Broadview, Illinois. The plaintiffs, Kyle Frankovich, a data scientist at Harvard University, and Maureen Foody, a court reporter, filed the suit on October 2, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The lawsuit stems from a protest that took place on October 3, 2025, where Frankovich and Foody were peacefully demonstrating in a designated "free speech" zone outside the Broadview ICE Processing Center. They were among a crowd gathered to oppose the Trump administration's aggressive immigration policies, particularly Operation Midway Blitz, which involved a surge of federal agents into cities like Chicago. During the protest, Johnson, embedded with then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and former Border Patrol Commander-at-Large Gregory Bovino, filmed the event and made several inflammatory claims about the protesters.
In videos posted across social media platforms, Johnson referred to the demonstrators as "left-wing terrorists" and falsely accused them of assaulting federal officers. He stated, "These individuals assaulted ICE officers as they were trying to clear out the area behind us over here," and described the scene as filled with "probably about a dozen left-wing terrorists arrested for attacking police officers and ICE officers." These statements were made without any evidence, as neither Frankovich nor Foody was charged with any crime after being detained for approximately eight hours.
The implications of this lawsuit extend beyond the personal grievances of Frankovich and Foody; it taps into broader concerns about the role of media figures in shaping public perception and the dangerous consequences of misinformation. Frankovich expressed the psychological toll that Johnson's accusations have had on him and his partner, stating, "They said we need to find who this person is, find out where they live, and we need to stop him. And that's obviously very terrifying." The lawsuit highlights how the rhetoric used by influential figures can incite violence and harassment against individuals labeled as political opponents.
As the plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, their case could set a precedent for holding media influencers accountable for defamation and misinformation. Karriane Jones, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, emphasized the importance of this lawsuit in holding accountable those who "serve as a mouthpiece for the government" and spread harmful narratives that affect real people's lives.
This lawsuit is notable as it appears to be the first defamation case related to the Trump administration's immigration crackdown targeting a member of the so-called "MAGA influencers" who have been instrumental in promoting the administration's narrative. Johnson's content, described in the lawsuit as "political combat dressed up as news," has gained widespread attention and has been used to bolster the Trump administration's anti-immigration agenda.
With over 10 million followers on social media, Johnson's reach increases the potential damage caused by his false statements. His portrayal of Frankovich and Foody as terrorists mischaracterized their actions and led to a wave of online harassment, including threats of violence. The fallout from Johnson's videos has been severe, with Frankovich noting that he has felt unsafe walking alone and has had to alter his daily routines due to fear for his safety.
The upcoming legal proceedings will be closely monitored, as they may influence how similar cases are handled in the future. The plaintiffs are seeking damages in excess of $75,000, as well as punitive damages, which could send a strong message to media personalities about the consequences of spreading false information. Johnson's response to the lawsuit and any potential defenses he may raise will also be of interest, particularly in light of his previous controversies, including being fired from BuzzFeed for plagiarism.
As the case progresses, it will be important to observe how it impacts public discourse surrounding immigration and the portrayal of activists in conservative media. Will this lawsuit serve as a deterrent to other media figures who might engage in similar behavior? Or will it embolden them to continue spreading misinformation with impunity? The outcome could have lasting implications for both the plaintiffs and the broader media environment.