There are a number of fundamental truths that are critical to understanding America and our place in the world.

One is the importance of access to abundant, secure sources of domestic energy, as well as the infrastructure to move it. Without the infrastructure, all the oil, gas and coal in the world would do little good. In fact, the combination of access to sufficient natural resources and the ability to transport them safely and efficiently is as important to U.S. security as a strong military and an abundant food supply.

Another fundamental truth concerns our legal system, anchored in our fealty to the rule of law. Our laws are made and administered not arbitrarily but through a well-defined and established process — one that holds everyone, regardless of rank or status, accountable for their actions.

An unfortunate third truth may be that organizations like Greenpeace and their ilk are bound and determined to undermine both of the first institutions.

Readers may recall how in 2016 and 2017 activists launched a violent and destructive campaign against the Dakota Access Pipeline. Many were paid and trained by Greenpeace, which prepared them in tactics that went far beyond what any reasonable person could consider simple civil disobedience: trespass, sabotage, aggressive engagement with workers, acts of provocation against law enforcement, and destruction that caused millions of dollars in damage and delays.

At the same time, Greenpeace waged a disinformation campaign against Energy Transfer, the company building the pipeline. The self-professed "non-violent, creative confrontation" eco-organization lobbed outlandish and patently false claims against the company, all to poison the well of public opinion and further foment violent protests.

Justice finally came in 2025. That year a North Dakota jury handed down a $667 million verdict — the largest sum of its kind awarded at the time by a U.S. court — finding Greenpeace liable for its actions. While the award was later reduced to $345 million, it is still a groundbreaking and appropriate punishment for actively and illegally interfering with a critical infrastructure project.

What Greenpeace did in parallel to the judgment was equally astonishing and nefarious, even for an organization that deals in the outrageous.

In addition to appealing the jury's decision in an American court, Greenpeace took its case to Europe, filing a retaliatory lawsuit against Energy Transfer in a Dutch court. They did this by abusing a new European Union "anti-Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation" directive designed to protect European citizens from frivolous lawsuits against their free speech.

In a nutshell, Greenpeace asked a court in the Netherlands to award damages that would negate the U.S. jury verdict on the grounds that they were simply exercising "free speech" in the course of trespassing, defaming and conspiring to physically damage critical energy infrastructure.

The precedent this could set, should the Dutch court erroneously rule in Greenpeace's favor, is concerning, to say the least. It would provide a legal pathway for bad actors to circumvent U.S. law and avoid accountability for their actions.

Any entity that is found liable by a U.S. court or jury but that has even a trace of a connection to Europe could simply file an appeal overseas. Find an empathetic country, file an appeal there, and secure a verdict that essentially nullifies the damages that were awarded in the United States.

It's an end-run around the American justice system, which would undermine the sovereignty of our courts.

Besides the alarming — yet seemingly abstract — legal concerns, there would also be concrete impacts for the U.S. and, ironically, Europe. Any extremist environmental organization would read a ruling as a green light to engage in the same sort of destructive, violent, and costly tactics employed by Greenpeace in the DAPL campaign. After all, even if they were found liable for their actions here, they would have access to a foreign legal relief valve.

This would immediately impose a level of risk and cost on any energy infrastructure project on U.S. soil, greatly limiting our ability to transport our national resources to domestic and overseas markets. This ought to be concerning to the Europeans as well, who have learned the hard way since Russia invaded Ukraine just how much they depend on American energy.

Unless the EU would rather depend on Russia, the wolf on its doorstep, for keeping its lights and heat on, it should be hesitant to facilitate efforts to paralyze America's energy supply.

Protest is an important right enshrined in the Constitution, but it doesn't permit destruction and violence. The Dutch court should reject Greenpeace's claims and see the play for what it really is — an attempt to circumvent the American justice system. Misusing this well-intentioned, if not slightly misguided, EU legal directive hurts everyone and would undermine several important fundamental truths.

Ken Buck served in the United States House of Representatives from 2015-2024 representing Colorado's 4th congressional district. He now serves as a Fellow with the Independent Center. To find out more about Ken Buck and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Photo credit: Wolfgang Weiser at Unsplash