Propublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates power abuse. Sign up and receive the biggest story as soon as it’s published.
Environmentalists have long faced harassment, imprisonment and other retaliation in some parts of the world. The United States is primarily an exception, a place where people and organizations can freely and safely pursue efforts to protect human health and nature, and sometimes work in cooperation with governments.
However, treatment for people fighting pollution has changed clearly in recent months.
Nonprofit environment groups are facing attacks from the Trump administration, summons from criminal investigations, online harassment and industrial lawsuits that say they are designed to threaten silence. Over the past few weeks, fears have been growing that the administration will try to revoke the status of at least some groups of nonprofits.
Today, Earth Day, Propublica is publishing an interview with Abigail Dillen, president of Earthjustice, the country’s largest public-interest environment company. Over the past 50 years, Earthjustice’s lawyers have helped establish the first federal restrictions on mercury and other chemicals released from power plants, successfully pushing a ban on toxic pesticides, and fighting to protect hundreds of endangered species.
However, the future of the environmental movement is at risk. This shift has been largely unguided by the Environmental Protection Agency. The Environmental Protection Agency is tasked with protecting the air and water of its citizens. Lee Zeldin, head of President Donald Trump’s EPA, has reimbursed and sharply criticised several environmental organizations. For eight nonprofits that received $2 billion in federal funds aimed at promoting clean energy, Zeldin is moving further, working with the FBI to collaborate in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund’s criminal investigation.
The EPA moved to cancel funds in February after Zeldin was approved to throw out a Congress-approved grant program from the Titanic. “In my opinion, the whole scheme is a criminal.” Zeldin told Fox News. A large ju ju ruling was set up to investigate his claims. The judge found that the EPA had not yet produced evidence of fraud, but the agency frozen the funds and federal authorities sent subpoena to the organizations that received the funds.
Zeldin and Trump have publicly called out environmental activists by their names. After Fox News showed a photo of one group’s executive director, Beth Bafford in an interview with Zeldin, she said she received dozens of messages and threats in voicemail. On social media, people responded to Zeldin’s online allegations with a call to jail the people he targeted, claim treason, and then execute them.
Meanwhile, Green Group faces threats from lawsuits that say it is designed to intimidate and wear advocacy groups. Dozens of states have adopted laws to block so-called strategic litigation into public participation or SLAPP litigation. In March, the North Dakota ju apprentice has no anti-slap laws, so environmental organisation Greenpeace is responsible for more than $660 million for its role in the protest against the Dakota Access Pipeline. Energy Transfer, a pipeline company, has alleged in court that Greenpeace slandered the company and coordinated its criminal activity by protesters. Greenpeace vowed to appeal the verdict.
These events came as the new administration will make energy production the main focus, shifting EPA priorities to make the US the world’s artificial intelligence capital, including deregulation and “recovering energy control,” and reviving jobs in the automotive industry. The agency argues that, contrary to what many critics have said, these changes will not affect their commitment to protecting clean air and clean water.
Dillen is seeing an increase in lawsuits targeting Greenpeace incidents and free speech more broadly as one of the increased threats to the organizations working to maintain the environment, and for those who staff them. She spoke to Propublica about the nonprofit target, how the second Trump administration differs from the first group, and what keeps her in the evening. This interview has been compiled for length and clarity. Propublica reached out to the EPA and the White House for comment but did not receive a response.
Nonprofit executives have recently told me about changing their lives. One day they are working to meet the grant requirements and are accused of participating in a crime “planning” next. Do you know someone else in this situation?
yes. I’ve heard people are being harassed at their homes. This happens when the federal government sends a signal that people legally funded by the government are actually fraudsters and fraudsters. This effort to criminalize those who receive government grants appropriately has a major impact online and in real life.
Is this new?
I can’t remember the kind of instance we’re looking at now. It’s not the first time our clients have been threatened. Earthjustice has been a threat for many years. But when the federal government (the EPA administrator, the president himself) is personally targeting people online, that’s very different. It is fundamentally different and has a fundamentally different effect.
Earthjustice recently hired an outside law firm to help the organization’s clients with SLAPP suits. Why did you feel you need to do that now?
Slapsuits are nothing new. And that’s partly why many states have anti-slap laws. What’s happening now is the tone the president has set from the top, spreading the idea that people who want to work in the public interest are actually hurting the country. This will provide large companies with licenses to deploy highly disadvantageous tactics like Slapp Suits. The attitudes that this administration projects about civil society are so negative that it is concerned about promoting more hostile activities by the private sector. They also fear that the very prominent ruling of Slapsuits against Greenpeace will involve other companies and other large law firms.
We’ve seen the administration plan to withdraw its position as a Harvard nonprofit. Are you worried that the same thing is happening to your environmental group?
I am worried about this administration in all respects. But of course, that kind of behavior is illegal. The President cannot weaponize the IRS by directing audits without legitimate procedures or justification, or stripping them of their tax-exempt status. This type of attack will clash with the core of our democracy and set precedents that threaten not only environmental groups, but all kinds of charities, from neighbouring churches to disaster relief and medical research institutes.
(Editor’s note: Many experts agree that it is illegal for Trump to instruct the IRS to remove the status of Harvard nonprofits, but the president argued that tax exemption is a “privilege.” Politico reported that Zeldin should not significantly reconsider the government’s status of environmental groups’ nonprofits.
I’ve noticed that environmental leaders are reluctant to speak publicly. What do you think you’ll lose by speaking up?
Overall, this administration is deploying FBI power in a way that makes federal and FBI power increasingly scary for anyone to speak out. Right now there is a clear risk that doing your normal job could lead you to become a target for the administration. For recipients of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, its target is in the form of a survey by the Large Ju Court.
How is the new administration’s approach to environmental issues different from the first Trump administration’s approach?
The first Trump administration had a very positive agenda for rolling back environmental protections, but this method wasn’t too different to what past administrations did. It was largely kept in the legally mandated process of proposing new rules, completing exchange policies and implementing weaker policies. Looking back, it appears quite conventional, at least because there was optical compliance with the normal process.
Trump’s EPA plans to stop collecting greenhouse gas emission data from most polluters
Now you have the administration promote and take in more fundamental agendas, and so far they’re distributing the usual process. So there is an energy emergency declaration, which is becoming an excuse to make decisions without adhering to the usual permitting process. You have this new announcement that regulated industries can apply for presidential exemptions that ease them from compliance obligations. Here, it should be noted that it applies even to Biden administration regulations, which the Supreme Court refuses to stay. This is the ending execution around the regulations that are featured in today’s book.
So has Earthjustice’s strategy changed too?
have. When I imagined what our first incident was, I imagined we were fighting an effort to maintain lifesaving regulations. And it certainly happens. But we wouldn’t have imagined working 24 hours a day to challenge suspended fundraising for farmers, or dodging immediate efforts by the Trump administration to block New York’s crowd pricing.
I believe there is a remedy in the court for what is going on.
What if the court finds it in your favor but the administration does not comply with their decision? Is that what keeps you at night?
I am very worried about losing the rule of law in this country.
Do you sleep well?
no.
Do you think environmentalist targeting is accomplished or aimed at achieving?
The Trump administration is being bankrolled very significantly by the fossil fuel industry. It has been widely reported that the president has pledged to benefit the industry many times, seeking financial support. And the President is bringing those promises, aiming to be a climate policy and a group that successfully advocated them. I think there are some big plays. So climate solutions have made a big difference in our economy, and the president has chosen to put it into a strong incumbent industry rather than allowing fair competition within the country. And part of justifying this approach publicly is to silence the groups that are effectively lifting the reality of climate change and the urgent need to deal with it.
Are you worried that this country is becoming a dangerous place for people working in the environment?
With every fiber of my existence, I hope we are not one of those countries. But will I see that as much as I can? absolutely.
