Ignorance, activism or crass commercialism. Or possibly all three.

From Jill Filipovich, a mainstream journalist.  

Click to enlarge.

It feels as if establishment journalists are either not keeping up with technology or don't understand that their readers are ahead of them.

The faux (and fey) cluelessness is unpleasant.  Filipovich is posting 24 hours after the incident.  Still much to be discovered but the facts were reasonably established at that point.  And in terms of Filipovich's question, the law has remained the same over the entire past year.  This is not new news.  Her question has been well answered multiple times over multiple incidents over the past year.  If Filipovich has not been paying attention all year, it discredits her as a journalist.  If she has not been paying attention over the past day, shame on her.

Reading her post just feels like manipulative propaganda.  You may or may not like the law, but there it is.  No point in pretending to be ignorant.  

The Saturn symbol in the upper right of the screenshot is obviously Grok, an AI tool for genuine questions.  If Filipovich genuinely doesn't know what authority ICE had to stop the protestor, why doesn't she ask Grok instead of the world?  Seems deliberately engagement seeking rather than knowledge seeking.  

Grok provides the answer:

Click to enlarge.

A good start.  But what is the language of the statute?  Grok:

18 U.S.C. § 111 is the federal statute that criminalizes assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering with certain United States officers or employees (or former officers/employees in certain cases) while they are engaged in or on account of the performance of their official duties.

This law protects a wide range of federal personnel, including (but not limited to) federal law enforcement officers, agents, employees of U.S. government agencies, and members of the uniformed services — as defined by cross-reference to 18 U.S.C. § 1114.

Current Text of 18 U.S.C. § 111 (as of January 2026)

(a) In General. — Whoever—

(1) forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties; or

(2) forcibly assaults or intimidates any person who formerly served as a person designated in section 1114 on account of the performance of official duties during such person’s term of service, shall, where the acts in violation of this section constitute only simple assault, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both, and where such acts involve physical contact with the victim of that assault or the intent to commit another felony, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

(b) Enhanced Penalty. — Whoever, in the commission of any acts described in subsection (a), uses a deadly or dangerous weapon (including a weapon intended to cause death or danger but that fails to do so by reason of a defective component) or inflicts bodily injury, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

(c) Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. — There is extraterritorial jurisdiction over the conduct prohibited by this section.

Key Penalty Breakdown

Simple assault (no physical contact and no intent to commit another felony): Up to 1 year imprisonment (misdemeanor level in many cases).

Assault involving physical contact or with intent to commit another felony: Up to 8 years imprisonment (felony).

Aggravated (with a deadly/dangerous weapon or causing bodily injury): Up to 20 years imprisonment (felony).

Important Notes

• The term "forcibly" is a key element — courts generally require some form of physical force or threat of force (mere words or passive resistance are often insufficient).

• This statute is frequently used in cases involving federal officers such as FBI agents, U.S. Marshals, Border Patrol agents, National Park rangers, TSA officers, and others.

• The most recent notable change was the addition of subsection (c) in 2021 (Pub. L. 117–59), explicitly providing for extraterritorial jurisdiction (meaning the crime can be prosecuted even if committed outside the United States in certain circumstances).

For the most authoritative and up-to-date version, refer to official sources like the U.S. Code at Cornell LII, the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, or GovInfo. If you're dealing with a specific legal situation involving this statute, consulting a qualified attorney is strongly recommended, as interpretations can vary by circuit and case facts.

Plenty of rabbit holes to go down here.  What is deadly assault?  Do vehicles count?  How does intent factor in? Were the officers being obstructed in their duties or were they being obstructed while not on a mission and does that make a difference?

But within 24 hours it seems to have been discovered and agreed that the protestor was part of an organized group who were deliberately interfering with federal agents in their authorized activities, used her vehicle initial to obstruct federal agent movements, then disobeyed instructions, and finally, whether intentionally or not, struck an agent with her vehicle.  

Further information may come forth but Filipovich seems not to be asking in good faith because the answer is already known from the past year and because the answer is at her fingertips whether from Grok, or Gemini or from traditional Google.  

Asking a question to either provoke or to simply gain attention is not journalism.  It is either activism or crass commercialism.  Or, of course, simple ignorance.