SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
fossil fuel industry
Big Oil’s Revenge: the Lawsuit That Could Crush Climate Activism
Energy Transfer’s case against Greenpeace could redefine First Amendment rights for everyone in the U.S. It must be exposed for the grave threat it is.
Mar 17, 2025
The strategic lawsuit against public participation, or SLAPP, lawsuit by Energy Transfer Partners against Greenpeace is a blatant attack on free speech, enabled by a biased legal system stacked with unqualified, partisan judges. It exemplifies how corporate power, run amok, threatens one of the most fundamental American rights—the right to dissent.
In late February, we watched this unfold in a small courtroom in Mandan, North Dakota—a town just across the Missouri River from Bismarck, now the site of a legal mugging. The victims? The entire climate and environmental movement, represented by Greenpeace. The assailants? Energy Transfer Partners (ETP), Dakota Access Pipeline, and their legal enforcers at the infamous fossil fuel law firm Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher.
In President Donald Trump’s dystopian America, stacked juries and sham trials may soon become the new normal.
ETP’s CEO, Kelcy Warren, isn’t even pretending otherwise. He admitted the lawsuit’s purpose is “to send a message.” When asked if he wanted to cut off funding for groups like Greenpeace, he answered, “Absolutely.” He has even suggested that environmental activists should be “removed from the gene pool.” Now Warren has commandeered a public court and stolen public resources and citizens’ time, all to wage his revenge attack and get his “pound of flesh.” He’s just picked out the biggest environmental justice name he could think of—Greenpeace—as his victim.
In truth, this case is about silencing dissent. It continues the long-standing erasure of Native American rights, sidelining the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe—the true leaders of the DAPL protest movement—while targeting anyone who dares challenge corporate billionaires and fossil fuels.
We've seen this playbook before. When Chevron lost a $9.5 billion judgment in Ecuador for its deliberate dumping of billions of gallons of cancer-causing oil waste as Texaco. It decimated Indigenous communities and is a big reason why Native Americans should be worried fossil fuels will poison their water—Chevron did it intentionally. Then, to escape justice in Ecuador, it weaponized the U.S. legal system to wage SLAPP attacks and denied access to justice for Indigenous peoples, which culminated in the unprecedented imprisonment of a U.S. lawyer for a misdemeanor contempt charge—via a private corporate prosecution.
Gibson Dunn, central to both cases, is a prime example of how unethical lawyers manipulate the courts to crush free speech. In the Greenpeace case, they claim “tortious interference” over statements Greenpeace repeated from news reports—statements that were true. More chillingly, ETP argues that Greenpeace is liable for any alleged crimes at Standing Rock because it trained activists in deescalation, nonviolence, and safety. If the same logic applied, those who trained January 6 insurrectionists in political activism would be held liable for the Capitol riot—an irony that exposes the selective use of accountability.
The world saw the footage from Standing Rock: brutal police crackdowns, mass arrests, and unchecked violence against Indigenous and allied protesters. Yet no security personnel faced consequences—only demonstrators. Now, ETP seeks to gaslight the public in a courtroom where nearly every juror has admitted bias against Native Americans and environmental activists, with direct ties to the fossil fuel industry. In President Donald Trump’s dystopian America, stacked juries and sham trials may soon become the new normal.
This case could redefine First Amendment rights for everyone in the U.S. It must be exposed for the grave threat it is. Bipartisan efforts are underway to bring a federal anti-SLAPP law into effect to help protect the right to free speech. This case should light a fire under those efforts because, for many, the ability to peacefully protest and organize is all we have left.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Trump and Cabinet Thrash Climate, Coalition Demands Dems Hold the Line Against Big Oil Immunity
"What's at stake here isn't just who pays for climate disasters—it's whether our democracy allows powerful industries to simply rewrite the rules when justice catches up to them," said the communications director at Make Polluters Pay.
Mar 13, 2025
Over 190 groups are urging Democrats in Congress resist any attempts by Big Oil to evade potential legal liability amid the growing number of legal and legislative efforts aimed at holding major polluters accountable for their role in the climate crisis.
In a Thursday letter addressed to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), the groups urge Democratic lawmakers "to proactively and affirmatively reject any proposal that would shield fossil fuel companies" from those efforts.
A quarter of U.S. residents live in a state or locality that is "taking ExxonMobil and other major fossil fuel companies to court to hold them accountable for this deception and make them pay for the damage their climate lies have caused," according to the letter. Maine, for example, became the eighth U.S. state to sue major oil and gas companies for deceiving the public about their products' role in the climate crisis.
The letter signatories include a long list of green groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity and Extinction Rebellion US, as well as the American Association of Justice and other nonprofits.
The Supreme Court on Monday denied a request by a coalition of Republican state attorneys general aimed at preventing oil and gas companies from facing these types of lawsuits. Trump has also vowed to block climate litigation aimed at Big Oil.
In their letter, the groups also point to a number of efforts, some successful, to pass what are known as "superfund laws," which force privately owned polluters to help cover the costs of protecting public infrastructure from climate-fueled threats. Oil and gas companies have lobbied against the passage of these laws.
"What's at stake here isn't just who pays for climate disasters—it's whether our democracy allows powerful industries to simply rewrite the rules when justice catches up to them," said Cassidy DiPaola, communications director of Make Polluters Pay—one of the letter's signatories—in a Thursday statement.
"Lawmakers must decisively reject any attempt by the fossil fuel industry to evade accountability and ensure both justice today and the right of future generations to hold polluters responsible for decades of deception," DiPaola continued.
The letter references episodes when "fossil fuel companies and their allies" tried to "secure a blanket waiver of liability for their industry."
In 2017, a carbon tax plan spearheaded by a group of Republican statesmen and economists proposed stopping potential lawsuits against oil companies and other corporations that release greenhouse gases, and in 2020, the fossil fuel industry tried to quietly include a liability waiver for itself in a government Covid-19 relief package, according to the outlet Drilled.
The letter also highlights that 60 Democratic House members urged leadership to categorically oppose efforts to "immunize polluters" in response to the latter effort.
"We have reason to believe that the fossil fuel industry and its allies will use the chaos and overreach of the new Trump administration to attempt yet again to pass some form of liability waiver and shield themselves from facing consequences for their decades of pollution and deception," the letter states. "That effort—no matter what form it takes—must not be allowed to succeed."
The demand from these groups comes amid broader attacks on climate and environmental protections from the Trump administration
On Wednesday, the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced a series of actions to roll back environmental regulation impacting issues ranging from rules on pollution from power plants to regulations for vehicles.
On his first day in office, Trump signed executive orders withdrawing the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement and initiated plans to open up Alaskan wilderness to drilling and mining.
Keep ReadingShow Less
RFK Jr. Will Need a Miracle Cure to Fight Cancer on Trump’s Budget
At the same time Trump is pledging to reverse childhood cancer rates, he and his attack doge Elon Musk are gutting federal health agencies to help pay for huge tax breaks for corporations and the uber rich.
Mar 11, 2025
During his marathon, fact-free speech to Congress last week, President Donald Trump announced that his administration plans to address the growing incidence of childhood cancer.
“Since 1975, rates of child cancer have increased by more than 40%,” Trump said. “Reversing this trend is one of the top priorities for our new presidential commission to make America healthy again, chaired by our new Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. …Our goal is to get toxins out of our environment, poisons out of our food supply, and keep our children healthy and strong.”
As usual, Trump got the statistic wrong. In fact, childhood cancer rates increased 33% since 1975, according to a study published in the journal PLOS One in January (and verified by the American Cancer Society), and the uptick in cases can be at least partly attributed to improved detection technology.
What would a major loss of federal scientific expertise mean for HHS Secretary Kennedy’s childhood cancer commission? Given that Kennedy, a prominent anti-vaccine activist, is not known for paying attention to scientific evidence, it may not matter much.
That said, the PLOS One study did find that some childhood cancers—notably leukemia, lymphoma, brain tumors, liver tumors, and gonadal tumors—are on the rise, so by all means, the federal government should do more to try to reduce them.
But at the same time Trump is pledging to reverse childhood cancer rates and “get toxins out of our environment,” he and his attack doge Elon Musk are gutting federal health agencies to help pay for huge tax breaks for corporations and the uber rich.
Indiscriminate Cuts Across the Board
All of the agencies that protect public health are on the chopping block.
Just a few weeks ago, for example, his administration illegally fired some 5,200 employees at Kennedy’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including nearly 1,300 staff members at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), roughly a tenth of the agency’s workforce.
Meanwhile, over at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the new administrator, Lee Zeldin, is threatening a budget cut of at least 65%. That would leave the agency with an annual budget of about $3.2 billion, less than a third of its budget in fiscal year (FY) 1970—the year it began—in inflation-adjusted 2024 dollars. Such a meager budget would destroy the agency, exactly what the fossil fuel industry-funded Republican Party has been wanting to do for years.
The Trump administration is also trying to ax a key portion of National Institutes of Health (NIH) biomedical research funding, which would undermine any effort to curtail childhood cancer—not to mention research on other deadly diseases.
On February 7, it announced it will cut an estimated $4 billion from NIH grants by capping funding for “indirect” overhead costs that cover such expenses as facilities, electric utilities, and administrative and janitorial services at 15%, half the current average rate. About $26 billion of NIH’s $35 billion in FY2023 grants that went to more than 2,500 universities, medical schools, and other research institutions covered direct costs—researchers and laboratories. The balance—$9 billion—paid for overhead.
Experts warn that without adequate overhead support, researchers would not be able to do their work.
Three days after the administration announced its intention to cut the NIH budget, five medical associations and 22 states filed lawsuits challenging the plan. Later that day, U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley in Boston granted a temporary restraining order. She followed up on March 5, the day after Trump’s speech to Congress, by filing a preliminary injunction that put the cuts on hold while the lawsuits proceed. “The risk of harm to research institutions and beyond,” Kelley wrote in a 76-page order, “is immediate, devastating, and irreparable.”
It’s 2017 all Over Again (With a Major Difference)
Trump’s zeal to hobble federal medical and scientific research should not come as a surprise. To a great extent, his current budget-chopping campaign reflects the FY2018 budget he proposed in May 2017. That radical proposal called for shrinking the budgets of NIH by 18%; EPA by 31%, the Food and Drug Administration by 31%, and the CDC by 17%, which would have been its lowest budget since 1997. It also called for hacking $610 billion from Medicaid over the following decade on top of an $880-billion cut a Republican healthcare plan advocated.
That budget was dead on arrival, despite the fact that Republicans controlled the White House, the House, and the Senate, albeit by only a 51 to 49 margin. Oklahoma Republican Tom Cole, then-chair of the House spending subcommittee that funds NIH, toldScientific American that he did not expect Congress to support Trump’s proposed cuts. Other legislators from both sides of the aisle also rejected the president’s NIH budget proposal. (Nevertheless, Trump’s previous administration did a lot of damage by eliminating or weakening over 100 environmental safeguards.)
Today, Republicans have the White House and slim majorities in both houses of Congress. Unlike 2017, however, congressional Republicans are in lockstep with Trump, and thus far have been cheering him and Musk on from the sidelines as they dismantle the federal government.
What would a major loss of federal scientific expertise mean for HHS Secretary Kennedy’s childhood cancer commission? Given that Kennedy, a prominent anti-vaccine activist, is not known for paying attention to scientific evidence, it may not matter much. It’s been widely reported that Kennedy has been telling children and adults in Texas to try Vitamin A, cod liver oil, and other dubious treatments if they get measles instead of urging them to get vaccinated, so one could only imagine what he would recommend that parents give their children to protect them from cancer. Aloe? Emu oil? Kombucha? All of the above?
This column was originally posted on Money Trail, a new Substack site co-founded by Elliott Negin.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular