AUSTIN, Texas – A new Greenpeace USA report documents how the corporate sponsor behind the Dakota Access Pipeline continues to use a variety of surveillance, lobbying, and legal tactics to silence protesters.

Project leader Molly Dorozenski with Greenpeace says in the wake of events at Standing Rock, Energy Transfer Partners worked with the pro-corporate American Legislative Exchange Council to introduce 60 new bills across the U.S., many of which classify pipelines as critical infrastructure.

"So critical infrastructure was previously things that were necessary for everyone in the state," she says. "They're not really critical for anyone except for the companies that are trying to move the oil. So what they've done is they've tried to really increase penalties specifically for people who are protesting this pipeline."

Dorozenski says after hiring private firms that deployed military-style tactics against demonstrators at Standing Rock, Energy Transfer Partners has continued to contract firms to infiltrate and surveil activist groups.

Energy Transfer Partners has not yet responded to a request for comment on the report, but the company has argued that legislation restricting demonstrations near pipelines is necessary to complete its projects and prevent property damage.

Dorozenski says the report shows what can happen when corporate power goes unchecked and worries the company's efforts could have a chilling effect on free speech by labeling peaceful protesters as eco-terrorists. She argues there's a strong tradition of Americans putting their bodies in the way to disrupt practices that they believe are harmful to communities.

"And it's actually part of America that we protest that way, it's the same as Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on the bus," she explains. "I think what Kelsey Warren and Energy Transfer Partners are really trying to do is make people afraid to speak out against their pipelines."

Dorozenski adds last year the company filed a $900 million lawsuit against Greenpeace and other groups citing RICO laws, used to prosecute the Mafia in the 1970s, to argue a coalition of environmental and indigenous groups constituted a criminal enterprise.

The report's recommendations include asking banks to cut financial ties with the company behind the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline.


get more stories like this via email

More than 1,000 protests against the policies of President Donald Trump are set for Saturday across the country, with 117 planned in California alone.

The so-called "Hands Off" protests are sponsored by a coalition of dozens of civil rights, environmental, education, social justice and labor groups.

Hunter Dunn is press and public relations director for the grassroots group 50501 So Cal, which stands for "50 protests in 50 states, one movement."

"We oppose executive overreach, including pardon abuse, the institution of Project 2025 policies, and mass deportations by ICE," Dunn outlined. "We also oppose the use of the unitary executive theory to justify ignoring the court system."

Trump has said policies are intended to save money, fight crime and support the domestic oil and gas industry. The rallies in downtown Los Angeles and Sacramento are expected to draw huge crowds for this national day of action.

Dunn argued large-scale protests over a sustained period will slow down the Trump administration's priorities and motivate people to make their voices heard at polls going forward.

"In 2026 and 2028, all the people that are in the streets, they will vote for pro-democracy candidates that are in favor of affordable housing, universal health care, workers rights," Dunn contended. "Any policies that actually make a difference in the lives of the average American."

Some of the groups involved in the protests include the Women's March, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Indivisible, MoveOn.org, Human Rights Campaign, the AFL-CIO and the League of Conservation Voters.


get more stories like this via email

A bill known as the Act for Civic Engagement did not make it out of committee in Olympia before the deadline but advocates for people who are incarcerated said they are not giving up.

The act would ensure people in Washington prisons and other facilities are able to form political organizations, communicate with community groups and elected officials and access spaces for meetings.

Karen Peacey was formerly incarcerated and now works with the advocacy group "I Did the Time." She said when people behind bars are able to stay engaged in politics and their communities, it reduces recidivism.

"They feel like they're a bigger part of society and an important part of society," Peacey explained. "Because they're helping to make it better."

Backers of the bill said more incarcerated people have submitted virtual testimony in Olympia since the pandemic but the process could be more accessible. Peacey argued people are being punished for doing political work from prison and the bill would prevent such retaliation.

The Washington Department of Corrections said implementing the bill would have cost more than $26 million and require over 100 additional employees, rendering it too expensive. Peacey countered the department already has the infrastructure in place for people in prison to communicate online with politicians and organizations.

She thinks the bill would have been important for the mental health of people in custody.

"You need to keep active, you need to keep your mind engaged," Peacey pointed out. "That's what creates a lesser evil within the prison."

Supporters of the bill said it followed other legislation passed in Olympia last year. The Nothing About Us Without Us Act guarantees legislative groups would include at least three people with direct lived experience of the issue they are working on. Peacey noted many incarcerated individuals have been part of the foster system or experienced abuse or a lack of support, giving them valuable insight into improving systems to reduce crime rates.


get more stories like this via email

An executive order signed by President Donald Trump to dramatically overhaul voting laws is unlikely to stand up in court, according to an election law expert. But some states may adopt its provisions to gain political favor.

David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, called the order an "executive power grab" meant to dictate how all 50 states will run their future elections. He noted that the president's order would require proof of citizenship on the national voter registration form and require the invalidation of ballots received after Election Day.

"I think it's very, very unlikely that this will take legal effect," he said. "It may be that some states adapt procedures, if they're friendly to the president, to comply with the EO, but it's very unlikely that federal government will be able to enforce many aspects of this EO, if not all of the aspects."

The order also would give the Elon Musk-led team known as the Department of Government Efficiency access to state voter rolls to check for "consistency with federal requirements." Becker said he expects voting-rights groups and state attorneys general to file challenges.

The order threatens to withhold federal funding from states that don't comply with its directives ahead of the 2026 midterms. Becker said that would come with a hefty price tag.

"It's creating an entirely new bureaucracy in every single state," he said. "The entire price tag of this entire executive order, if it were to be upheld, is well into the billions - and possibly tens of billons - of dollars."

The Trump administration has said the EO would prevent non-Americans from voting in federal elections by requiring a government-issued ID or a passport, but not a birth certificate, as proof of citizenship. More than half of Americans don't have a passport - including many in areas of the South and Midwest that voted for Trump in the 2024 election.

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.


get more stories like this via email