Greenpeace Faces Justice In A $660 Million Judgment For Dakota Access Pipeline Protests

Greenpeace Faces Justice In A $660 Million Judgment For Dakota Access Pipeline Protests

On March 19, 2025, a North Dakota jury delivered a resounding verdict that has sent shockwaves through the environmental activist community. Greenpeace must pay over $660 million in damages to Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). For those of us who have long argued that activism must stay within the bounds of law and order, this ruling is a welcome triumph of accountability over chaos. The judgment holds Greenpeace responsible for the destruction and disruption it inspired during the 2016-2017 protests against the pipeline—a costly and reckless campaign that went far beyond peaceful demonstration.

The Dakota Access Pipeline, a 1,172-mile conduit transporting crude oil from North Dakota to Illinois, has been a lightning rod of controversy since its inception. Completed in 2017 at a cost of $3.8 billion, the project faced fierce opposition, particularly from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which feared potential threats to its water supply near the Missouri River crossing. While the tribe’s concerns sparked a broader movement, it was Greenpeace’s involvement that escalated the protests into a destructive force, according to Energy Transfer’s lawsuit. The company alleged that Greenpeace orchestrated a campaign of misinformation, trespassing, and violence that delayed construction and inflicted significant financial harm—claims the jury overwhelmingly upheld.

The $660 million judgment—comprising compensatory and punitive damages—reflects the scale of the damage Greenpeace is deemed responsible for. Energy Transfer argued that the environmental group not only funded and trained protesters but also spread defamatory falsehoods to tarnish the company’s reputation and disrupt its operations. The jury agreed, finding Greenpeace liable for defamation, trespassing, and other offenses. This wasn’t about silencing free speech, as Greenpeace has claimed in its defense; it was about drawing a line between lawful protest and illegal sabotage. Peaceful demonstration is a cherished American right, but when it crosses into vandalism, intimidation, and orchestrated chaos, it deserves consequences.

For too long, Greenpeace has cloaked its radical tactics in the noble guise of environmental protection, evading accountability while leaving a trail of disruption. The DAPL protests were no exception. Thousands descended on North Dakota, camping out for months and clashing with authorities, with some actions veering into violence and property damage. Energy Transfer’s counsel, Trey Cox, emphasized that while peaceful protest is sacrosanct, “violent and destructive protest is unlawful and unacceptable.” The jury’s verdict echoes this sentiment, signaling that no group—however well-intentioned its stated mission—can act with impunity.

Greenpeace, predictably, has cried foul, framing the ruling as an attack on free speech and vowing to appeal. Interim executive director Sushma Raman called it a “massive financial blow” that could bankrupt the organization, warning of a chilling effect on future activism. But this narrative conveniently sidesteps the evidence: Greenpeace didn’t just support an Indigenous-led movement—it amplified it into a costly spectacle that hurt a legitimate business and the communities relying on it. North Dakota’s oil industry is a lifeline for jobs and economic stability in the region, and the protests disrupted more than just a pipeline—they disrupted lives.

The scale of the damages—far exceeding the $300 million Energy Transfer initially sought—underscores the jury’s view of Greenpeace’s culpability. Over $400 million of the award is punitive, a clear message that such behavior won’t be tolerated. This isn’t a case of “Big Oil” bullying a scrappy nonprofit; it’s a reckoning for an organization that overstepped its bounds. Energy Transfer’s CEO, Kelcy Warren, has been unapologetic about fighting back, a stance that’s refreshing in an era where corporations often bow to activist pressure. “What they did to us is wrong, and they’re going to pay for it,” Warren once said—a sentiment now validated by the courts.

Critics may argue that this sets a dangerous precedent, but the real danger lies in letting groups like Greenpeace operate unchecked. The DAPL protests weren’t a grassroots uprising hijacked by a few bad actors—they were a calculated effort, fueled by Greenpeace’s resources and global reach, to halt a project that was legally approved and operational by mid-2017. The pipeline now moves about 5% of the U.S.’s daily oil production, proving its value despite the opposition’s dire predictions. Holding Greenpeace accountable doesn’t stifle dissent; it ensures that dissent doesn’t devolve into destruction.

As of now, Greenpeace faces a financial cliff. Bankruptcy looms if the appeal fails, potentially ending its 50-year run of environmental advocacy in the U.S. Some will mourn this as a loss for the planet, but others—including myself—see it as justice long overdue. The law isn’t a tool for settling ideological scores; it’s a safeguard against those who think their cause justifies breaking it. On March 19, 2025, a North Dakota jury reminded us of that truth—and Greenpeace, at last, is paying the price.