ICE Protesters Sue Pro-Trump Influencer Benny Johnson for Defamation
Kyle Frankovich and Maureen Foody filed a defamation lawsuit against pro-Trump media figure Benny Johnson over videos and social media posts produced after protesters were detained outside an ICE facility in Broadview, Illinois, in October 2025.
The suit centers on what are described as ICE ride-along videos, according to the Washington Examiner. The complaint alleges Johnson falsely portrayed the protesters as "left-wing terrorists" who had assaulted federal officers. In one video cited in the suit, Johnson stated, "These individuals assaulted ICE officers as they were trying to clear out the area."
The detention occurred on October 31, 2025. Demonstrators had gathered within the "free speech zone" near an ICE processing and detention facility in Broadview. Frankovich was observing and recording video of ICE agents from a designated "free speech" area when he was thrown to the ground and arrested, the suit says. Foody was detained alongside him.
Both were released without charges. That release is central to the claim. The plaintiffs allege Johnson accused them of crimes tied to an assault on officers that did not occur.
Frankovich works as a data scientist for Harvard University. Foody works as a court reporter. Images of Frankovich with his hands zip-tied behind him were later used in recruiting material by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, according to NPR, which reported the lawsuit on Oct. 2, 2026.
Johnson made the Broadview videos while embedded with then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and then Border Patrol Commander-at-Large Gregory Bovino. His footage of the detained protesters was aired on Fox News. The plaintiffs' case concerns both the videos and related social media posts.
The filing names Johnson as the defendant. It does not name Noem, Bovino, ICE or Fox News as defendants.
Looking at what this means for people who manage press access and rapid-response video, the pleadings put two separate issues on the same record. One is the conduct in the free-speech zone and the decision to detain protesters who were later released. The other is the description of that conduct to a national audience by an embedded commentator traveling with agency leadership. For practitioners, that combination raises questions about verification, sourcing and liability when official access and on-camera narration move together. Courts will test the statements against the documented outcome, including the absence of charges, and against what video from the scene can establish.
The case also tests how far commentary can go in characterizing protesters during an enforcement operation. Labels tied to terrorism and assault carry a specific factual claim about criminal conduct. Plaintiffs' lawyers will likely press that point. Defense arguments will likely turn on interpretation, opinion and the context of a fluid scene outside a detention facility.
