Well, well, well—looks like Greenpeace is finally getting a taste of accountability, and it’s about time. The so-called “environmental activist” group is facing a $300 million lawsuit over its role in the chaos and destruction surrounding the Dakota Access Pipeline protests. And now, as jury selection begins, Greenpeace is suddenly very concerned about “free speech.” Funny how that works.
Let’s get one thing straight—this isn’t about free speech. It’s about illegal activity. Energy Transfer Partners, the company behind the pipeline, isn’t suing Greenpeace because it held a few rallies or wrote some mean press releases. They’re suing because Greenpeace allegedly helped fund and incite criminal acts—acts that caused millions in damages and put people’s lives at risk.
For those who don’t remember, the DAPL protests in 2016 and 2017 weren’t just your standard left-wing drum circles. They quickly devolved into arson, vandalism, and outright sabotage. One activist, Jessica Reznicek, took things so far that she ended up with an eight-year prison sentence after setting a bulldozer on fire and attacking the pipeline with a torch. Now, does that sound like a peaceful protester exercising her First Amendment rights? Or does that sound like a domestic terrorist?
Greenpeace, of course, is trying to frame this lawsuit as a corporate attack on democracy. According to their interim director, Sushma Raman, this case is “a critical test of the future of the First Amendment.” Oh, please. Nobody is stopping Greenpeace from holding signs or posting unhinged tweets about fossil fuels. What’s actually being challenged here is whether a supposedly ‘peaceful’ nonprofit can get away with financially backing and encouraging criminal activity under the guise of environmentalism.
A lawsuit could bankrupt Greenpeace: Energy Transfer Partners has sued Greenpeace over their support for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline’s construction. ET is asking $300 million from Greenpeace. pic.twitter.com/V486PRGaCY
— Vigyan Arya (@Vigyan) February 25, 2025
Energy Transfer has been clear from the start—this case isn’t about silencing opinions. It’s about holding groups like Greenpeace accountable when their activism crosses the line into lawlessness. And make no mistake—Greenpeace wasn’t just sitting on the sidelines during the pipeline protests. Energy Transfer accused them of funding and directing the most radical elements at the protest camps. These weren’t just tree-hugging demonstrators—they were people actively engaged in violence against law enforcement and destruction of private property.
And let’s not forget the millions of dollars in damages caused by these so-called “activists.” Heavy machinery was destroyed, law enforcement was attacked, and North Dakota taxpayers were left holding the bag for the cleanup. The state had to spend millions restoring the land that Greenpeace and its foot soldiers left looking like a post-apocalyptic wasteland—ironic, considering these people claim to be saving the environment.
Rare: An oil guy with the commonsense, courage and cash willing to fight the greens:
Fossil-fuel billionaire Kelcy Warren is about to land a knockout punch on Greenpeace. The pipeline magnate’s company, Energy Transfer is behind a lawsuit that Greenpeace says could bankrupt the… pic.twitter.com/EyvcCRmcT4
— Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) September 9, 2024
So now, Greenpeace is in full panic mode, warning that this lawsuit could bankrupt them. And you know what? Maybe it should. If they used donor money to bankroll eco-terrorists, if they incited illegal activity under the cover of “protest,” then they deserve every bit of legal trouble coming their way. The real threat to democracy isn’t a lawsuit—it’s radical activist groups who think the law doesn’t apply to them.
For years, Greenpeace and other far-left environmental groups have operated with zero accountability, believing they can do whatever they want as long as they wrap it in enough buzzwords about “climate justice.” But that era might finally be ending. If Energy Transfer wins this case, it will send a loud and clear message: you don’t get to destroy property, attack law enforcement, and sabotage infrastructure just because you slapped an ‘environmental’ label on it.
Greenpeace says they’re not fighting alone. Maybe so. But they are fighting a losing battle.
