Greenpeace messed with the bull, got both horns, and found out
Greenpeace to pay over $660 million to Energy Transfer over DAPL protests
The Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) protests and the subsequent lawsuit against Greenpeace have ignited a fierce debate about the boundaries of activism, free speech, and legal accountability. As a proud member of the Cherokee Nation, I hold the utmost respect for Native lands and the rights of Indigenous peoples to protect their heritage. However, I firmly believe that breaking the law is not the way to address these concerns… formal, professional channels within legal frameworks are the proper avenue for change. The $660+ million verdict on March 19, 2025 against Greenpeace emphasizes this principle, highlighting the consequences of crossing legal lines under the guise of “advocacy”.
The Protests… When and Why They Began
The DAPL, a 1,172-mile oil pipeline stretching from North Dakota to Illinois, became a lightning rod for controversy in 2016 when protests erupted. Originally led primarily by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, the opposition centered on fears of water contamination--particularly to the Missouri River--and the desecration of sacred sites near the pipeline’s route. What began as a local movement quickly swelled, drawing thousands of activists, including environmental activist Greenpeace, which lent resources, visibility, and organizational support. By late 2016, the protests had escalated, marked by both peaceful demonstrations and more contentious acts like trespassing, vandalism, and clashes with law enforcement.
New 2024 pipeline projects give 17.8 Bcf/d of additional gas transport capacity
Free Speech or Breaking the Law?
In 2017, Energy Transfer, the company behind DAPL, filed a $300 million lawsuit against Greenpeace, alleging defamation, civil conspiracy, trespass, and nuisance. They claimed the protests, amplified by Greenpeace’s involvement, caused significant financial damage. Greenpeace countered that the lawsuit was an assault on free speech, a strategic attempt to silence dissent. However, on March 19, 2025, a North Dakota jury sided with Energy Transfer, delivering a staggering $660+ million verdict against Greenpeace. This outcome sent a clear message: while free speech is a cornerstone of American rights, it does not shield illegal actions.
Energy Transfer’s position was articulated in a July 2024 media statement from their website:
MEDIA STATEMENT ON GREENPEACE LAWSUIT
July, 2024: Our lawsuit against Greenpeace is not about free speech as they are trying to claim. It is about them not following the law. We support the rights of all Americans to express their opinions and lawfully protest. However, when it is not done in accordance with our laws, we have a legal system to deal with that. Beyond that we will let our case speak for itself in February.
This statement crystallizes the core of the dispute: the lawsuit wasn’t about stifling voices but about holding accountable those who disrupted lawful operations through illegal means.
Legal Construction of the Pipeline
The DAPL was not a rogue project… it was built with legal permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These approvals followed environmental assessments, and while concerns about sacred sites and water safety were likely legitimate and deeply felt, the pipeline’s completion and operation since 2017 indicate that regulators found insufficient grounds to stop it. As a tribal member, I understand the pain of seeing Native lands impacted, as I’ve witnessed it personally on some of my family land, but I believe our fight for justice must respect the legal processes in place, not bypass them with unlawful acts.
More Pipelines on the Horizon as the Southeast’s Energy Future Takes Shape
Greenpeace’s Disruptions and Safety Risks
Greenpeace’s role in the protests went beyond advocacy into actions that crossed legal boundaries. They encouraged blockades of construction sites, supported trespassing on private property, and amplified efforts that disrupted pipeline operations. These actions didn’t just delay progress--they posed safety risks. Confrontations between protesters and security personnel escalated tensions, with reports of physical altercations and hazardous standoffs. By pushing beyond lawful protest into direct interference, Greenpeace contributed to a volatile environment that endangered both activists and workers.
Another Milestone for American Energy: Chris Wright Approves Venture Global’s CP2 LNG Project!
My Tribal Perspective… Lawful Advocacy Trumps Chaos
From my vantage point as a Cherokee Nation member, the DAPL saga is a call to balance passion with principle. I stand with my Native kin in defending our lands and rights, but I cannot condone breaking laws instead of engaging the system head-on. Formal avenues--lawsuits, petitions, regulatory challenges--offer a powerful, lawful way to voice concerns; making fools of yourselves does only that. The jury’s verdict against Greenpeace reinforces this: activism must operate within legal bounds to maintain credibility and achieve lasting change after going through the legal process. Greenpeace has signaled an appeal, but the decision stands as a sobering reminder of accountability.
Cherokee Nation Citizen Appointed as EPA South Central Regional Administrator
A Journey Through Cherokee History
The DAPL lawsuit and the $660 million judgment against Greenpeace illuminate a critical tension: free speech is sacred, but it’s not a free pass to break the law. The protests that began in 2016 were fueled by noble intentions--protecting water and sacred lands--but Greenpeace’s illegal tactics invited severe repercussions. As a Cherokee, I urge activists to channel their energy into lawful advocacy, respecting both Native rights and the legal framework that governs us all. Greenpeace messed with the bull, and they got both horns… proving that passion without restraint can lead to a costly fall.
Connect with me by visiting my personal website.
Thanks, Nathan. Your viewpoint on this is greatly valued. Who better than you to understand both sides of this? We need to respect the land but handle disputes lawfully.