Against the odds: It fought to save whales. Can Greenpeace save itself?

Greenpeace is among the most well-known environmental bodies in the world, the result of more than 50 years of headline-grabbing protest tactics.

Its activists have confronted whaling ships on high seas. They’ve hung banners from the Eiffel Tower. They’ve occupied oil rigs. A (fictional) activist even sailed with Greenpeace in an episode of ‘Seinfeld’, in hopes of capturing Elaine’s heart.

Now, Greenpeace’s very existence is under threat: A lawsuit seeks at least $300 million in damages. Greenpeace has said such a loss in court could force it to shut down its US offices. In the coming days, a jury is expected to render its verdict.

The lawsuit is over Greenpeace’s role in protests a decade ago against a pipeline near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in North Dakota. The pipeline’s owner, Energy Transfer, says Greenpeace enabled illegal attacks on the project and led a “vast, malicious publicity campaign” that cost the company money. Greenpeace says it played only a minor, peaceful role in the Indigenous-led protest and that the lawsuit’s real aim is to limit free speech not just at the organization, but also across America, by raising the spectre of expensive court fights.

The suit comes at a time of immense challenges for the movement. Climate change is making storms, floods and wildfires more frequent and more dangerous. The Trump administration has commenced a historic effort to overturn decades of environmental protections. Many of the movement’s most significant achievements over the past half-century are at risk.

And in recent years the potential costs of protest have already risen.

The International Center for Not-for-Profit Law has tracked a wave of bills proposed since 2017 that toughen penalties against protesters. Many became law in the wake of the demonstrations against the pipeline at the centre of the Greenpeace case (the Dakota Access Pipeline) and also the Black Lives Matter movement, which rose to prominence after the murder of George Floyd in 2020 by a police officer in Minnesota. More recently, the Trump administration has moved to deport international students who protested Gaza Strip war.

Sushma Raman, interim executive director of Greenpeace USA, has called the trial in North Dakota “a critical test of the future of the First Amendment.”

Energy Transfer, one of the biggest pipeline companies in the country, has said that the lawsuit is over illegal conduct, not free speech. “It is about them not following the law,” the company said in a statement.

Founded in Vancouver, British Columbia, in 1971, Greenpeace was hugely successful early on with what is now called “branding,” with its catchy name and daredevil stunts. But it has also faced major challenges: infighting, missteps, legal battles and questions about how to widen its base and remain relevant as it became an institution.

Greenpeace was founded as an offshoot of the Sierra Club based on the principles of ecology and anti-militarism. But pulling off daring stunts in pursuit of those principles, operating as a global professional network, has always been a delicate balancing act.

On Monday in a courtroom in the small city of Mandan, North Dakota, jury members are expected to start hearing closing arguments, after which they will consider Greenpeace’s fate.

The New York Times