Far-Left Groups Undermining Genuine Protests with Outside Agitators Seeking Conflict

Radical protesters supported by Greenpeace attempted to obstruct a pipeline in North Dakota. Following this, the pipeline company has won a significant legal victory against the prominent NGO. This outcome should resonate with other nonprofit organizations.

Recently, a jury in Mandan, ND, delivered an astonishing ruling against Greenpeace due to its involvement in the protests and misleading media strategies that interrupted the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline back in 2016.

The jury found Greenpeace USA, along with two other affiliated entities, responsible for civil conspiracy, defamation, trespassing, and additional unlawful acts.

If upheld, the verdict will obligate the renowned environmental organization to pay $667 million in damages to Energy Transfer, the corporation that constructed and owns the DAPL.

This decision was not entirely unforeseen. Greenpeace had attempted (and failed) to relocate the trial, arguing that a jury from this oil-producing area would likely favor the plaintiff.

However, the monumental amount of damages awarded will undoubtedly create ripples throughout the interconnected networks of nonprofits involved in disruptive protests nationwide.

Protests with Agitators

The protests against the pipeline near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation in North Dakota exhibit similarities to other mass demonstrations, such as the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 and the anti-Israel rallies that swept across the U.S. after the attacks on October 7.

These incidents can be classified as “hybrid protests,” where large crowds of peaceful participants are joined by smaller factions of trained agitators who escalate the situations towards violence.

As Park MacDougald reported in Tablet Magazine, these networks of troublemakers are often financially backed by “a vast web of progressive nonprofits, NGOs, foundations, and dark-money groups.”

Energy Transfer’s lawsuit against Greenpeace marks a significant breakthrough in revealing and holding accountable the seemingly legitimate nonprofits that finance and provide material support to lawbreakers who infiltrate these hybrid protests.

While many of these hybrid protests initially emerge spontaneously as local people mobilize against perceived injustices, they often see the influx of external activists, including trained agitators reminiscent of antifa. For instance, during various pro-Hamas campus protests, law enforcement discovered that about half of those arrested had no ties to the institutions they were occupying. These activists commonly have the resources to travel long distances for extended engagements and often come equipped with specialized tools for obstructing roads, occupying locations, or confronting police.

Some, like the dedicated activist Lisa Fithian, whom The New York Times noted led the occupation of Columbia University’s Hamilton Hall, describe themselves as “trainers” imparting allegedly nonviolent methods to novice protesters.

A Shift in Tactics

Energy Transfer’s civil suit alleged that a situation reflective of this occurred at Standing Rock. Greenpeace claims that the protests were spearheaded by local Native American activists, asserting that they merely provided incidental support.

They are accurate in stating that the disturbance began when the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe began voicing opposition to the pipeline being constructed near their reservation.

However, as a report in Outside Magazine highlighted, before long, outsiders—predominantly white—began to dominate the protests. While local Sioux leaders endeavored to keep the protests peaceful, numerous newcomers resorted to road blockades, equipment arson, and confrontations with law enforcement.

In court, lawyers for Energy Transfer presented evidence indicating that Greenpeace significantly supported the activists advocating for “direct action” against the pipeline.

Documents revealed that Greenpeace USA expended around $20,000 to deploy protest trainers—including a Greenpeace employee—to Standing Rock, and the group’s executive director personally secured another $90,000 for this initiative.

One internal Greenpeace email indicated the funding “has the capacity to provide skills training to 3,000 activists.”

Another Greenpeace staff member boasted in an email about engaging in “some awesome spy stuff” while searching for potential blockade sites near the construction area.

Additionally, Greenpeace provided power tools, propane tanks, tents, cold-weather gear, and a solar-panel-equipped van.

Raising the Stakes

Energy Transfer’s attorneys highlighted the delivery of 20 to 30 “lockboxes” by Greenpeace to the Standing Rock occupation. A lockbox—also referred to as a “sleeping dragon”—is a complex structure that enables activists to securely attach themselves to heavy machinery or to one another, effectively forming human barricades.

These devices typically consist of heavy PVC or concrete tubes into which activists can lock their arms, making it extremely difficult for law enforcement to disentangle them without specialized equipment. The lockboxes posed a significant challenge for police tasked with removing protesters from highways and construction sites.

One image presented during the trial depicted a Greenpeace-funded trainer utilizing a lockbox. When then-Greenpeace executive director Annie Leonard received a text showcasing another demonstrator using the device, her response was one of approval, noting that the action “ups the ante.”

When asked to clarify that statement in court, Leonard compared the protester’s actions to those of anti-segregation leader Rosa Parks.

The jury in North Dakota also supported Energy Transfer’s assertions that Greenpeace engaged in defamation against the company in its public statements regarding the project and unlawfully interfered with the company’s relationships with financial entities.

Greenpeace contends that its support of protesters and its statements regarding Energy Transfer are protected by the First Amendment. “We should all be concerned about the future of the First Amendment, and lawsuits like this aimed at undermining our rights to peaceful protest and free speech,” Deepa Padmanabha, senior legal counsel for Greenpeace USA, told The Washington Post.

However, the jury determined that actions such as trespassing and vandalism do not align with peaceful protest, while defamation does not equate to free speech.

A Tougher Landscape for NGOs

In response to inquiries about the verdict, a spokesperson provided a statement from Greenpeace USA’s executive director Sushma Raman: “This is the conclusion of a chapter, but not the end of our fight. Energy Transfer is aware we don’t possess $660 million. They seek our silence, rather than our financial resources.”

Energy Transfer will undoubtedly face challenges in recovering any funds from Greenpeace.

The NGO has already confirmed its intention to appeal the verdict, and one of its international affiliates has initiated legal action against the pipeline company in the Netherlands under an EU free-speech law.

Nevertheless, the remarkable court victory for Energy Transfer is bound to have consequences that extend beyond mere financial gain.

Over the years, progressive NGOs have increasingly dared to support radical groups engaged in violent actions. Numerous mainstream organizations depend on liberal donors who often remain oblivious to the ultimate destinations of their contributions. They utilize a facade of respectability and opaque funding tactics to insulate themselves from lawsuits or legal consequences.

However, for nonprofits participating in or financially backing unequivocally illegal activities, the era of impunity may be drawing to a close.

From City Journal.