As President Donald Trump doubles down on his “drill, baby, drill” energy policy—echoing the famous call of the Gov we love, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin—the environmental group Greenpeace finds itself in hot water. On Monday, a trial kicked off in North Dakota that pits a Texas-based pipeline company against the activist organization, with high stakes for both sides. The case revolves around the contentious Dakota Access Pipeline protests of 2016 and 2017, and it’s shaping up to be a battle over free speech, corporate accountability, and the limits of environmental activism.

Advertisement

Energy Transfer, the Dallas-based parent company of Dakota Access, is suing Greenpeace for what it calls a laundry list of offenses: defamation, trespassing, vandalism, and orchestrating disruptions during the pipeline’s construction. The $300 million lawsuit claims Greenpeace didn’t just protest but actively worked to sabotage the project, smear the company’s reputation, and encourage illegal acts by demonstrators. The trial, set to unfold over five weeks in Mandan, North Dakota, will test these allegations in front of a jury.

The Dakota Access Pipeline, now operational since mid-2017, sparked massive backlash when its route was planned to cross the Missouri River near the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation. The tribe and its supporters argued the pipeline posed a dire threat to their water supply, drawing thousands of protesters to the site. Hundreds were arrested during the standoff, which became a flashpoint in the debate over fossil fuels and indigenous rights.

Energy Transfer alleges that Greenpeace—specifically its U.S. and international branches, along with its funding arm—was a driving force behind the chaos. The company accuses the group of coordinating acts of violence and property damage, including attempts to rupture pipelines, which could have triggered the very environmental disasters Greenpeace claims to oppose. “This isn’t about free speech,” said Vicki Granado, a spokesperson for Energy Transfer. “We respect lawful protest, but when laws are broken, our legal system exists for a reason.”

Advertisement

Greenpeace, however, sees the lawsuit as an attack on its core mission and the broader right to dissent. “This case is a litmus test for free speech and peaceful protest under Trump’s administration,” said Sushma Raman, interim executive director of Greenpeace USA. “If Energy Transfer wins, it could scare people away from speaking out or joining demonstrations—whether they’re activists, journalists, or just concerned citizens.” The group argues that the company’s claims are flimsy and unproven, pointing out that a similar federal lawsuit filed by Energy Transfer in 2017 was tossed out in 2019.

The environmental organization also disputes the inclusion of Greenpeace International, headquartered in the Netherlands, in the lawsuit. It insists the international arm had no employees on the ground in North Dakota and operates separately from its U.S. counterparts. Earlier this month, a judge rejected Greenpeace’s attempts to dismiss or narrow the case, paving the way for the trial.

Critics of Greenpeace say the group’s tactics often cross the line from advocacy to interference. They point to a pattern of aggressive protests that disrupt workers and infrastructure, accusing the organization of prioritizing optics over practical solutions. Some even question its focus: while Greenpeace targets American oil projects, they argue, it largely ignores countries like China, where lax environmental regulations and heavy pollution dwarf U.S. emissions.

Energy Transfer, meanwhile, has grown from a small operation with 200 miles of pipeline in 1996 to a powerhouse managing over 125,000 miles today. The company sees the lawsuit as a necessary stand against what it calls reckless activism. Greenpeace trying to counter that it’s just a corporate ploy to silence opposition to an industry that Greenpeace seems to forget is vital to America's economic freedom from OPEC control.

Advertisement

As the trial unfolds, both sides are digging in. For Energy Transfer, it’s about protecting its business and holding lawbreakers accountable. For Greenpeace, it’s a fight for the right to challenge powerful interests without fear of ruinous retaliation. Whatever the jury decides, the outcome could ripple far beyond North Dakota, shaping how America balances energy, activism, and free expression in our golden era under President Trump.