Environmentalists have long faced harassment, imprisonment and other forms of retribution in some parts of the world. The U.S. has largely been an exception, a place where people and organizations can freely and safely pursue efforts to protect human health and nature — sometimes working hand in hand with the government.
But the treatment of people who fight pollution has palpably changed in recent months.
Nonprofit environmental groups are facing attacks from the Trump administration, subpoenas from criminal investigations, online harassment and industry lawsuits they say are designed to intimidate them into silence. In recent weeks, fears have grown that the administration will seek to revoke the nonprofit status of at least some groups.
Today, on Earth Day, ProPublica is publishing an interview with Abigail Dillen, president of Earthjustice, the country’s biggest public interest environmental firm, about the escalating hostility environmentalists face. Over the past five decades, Earthjustice’s lawyers have helped to establish the first federal limits on mercury and other chemicals emitted by power plants, successfully pushed for bans on toxic pesticides and fought to protect hundreds of endangered species.
But the future of the environmental movement is in peril. The shift has been led in no small part by the Environmental Protection Agency, which is tasked with protecting the public’s air and water. President Donald Trump’s head of the EPA, Lee Zeldin, has defunded and sharply criticized some environmental organizations. For eight nonprofit groups that received $20 billion in federal money aimed at promoting clean energy, Zeldin has gone further, working with the FBI on a criminal investigation into the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, the grant program that funds them.
The EPA moved to cancel the funding in February after Zeldin likened the congressionally authorized grant program to throwing gold bars off the Titanic. Zeldin told Fox News that “the entire scheme, in my opinion, is criminal,” suggesting there was self-dealing and conflicts of interest. A grand jury was launched to investigate his claims. Although a judge has found that the EPA has yet to produce any evidence of wrongdoing, the agency froze the funds and federal authorities sent subpoenas to the organizations that received the money.
Zeldin and Trump have publicly called out environmental activists by name. After Fox News showed a picture of Beth Bafford, the executive director of one group, during an interview with Zeldin, she said she received dozens of messages and threats on her voicemail. On social media, people have responded to Zeldin’s online allegations with calls to imprison the people he is targeting, charge them with treason and even execute them.
Meanwhile, green groups are facing threats from lawsuits they say are designed to intimidate and wear down advocacy organizations. Dozens of states have adopted laws to discourage so-called strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPP suits. In March, a jury in North Dakota, which does not have an anti-SLAPP law, found the environmental organization Greenpeace liable for more than $660 million for its role in protests over the Dakota Access Pipeline. The pipeline company, Energy Transfer, argued in court that Greenpeace defamed the company and orchestrated criminal behavior by protestors. Greenpeace has vowed to appeal the verdict.
These events have taken place as the new administration makes energy production a main focus, shifting the EPA’s priorities to include deregulation and “restoring energy dominance,” making the U.S. the artificial intelligence capital of the world and bringing back jobs in the auto industry. The agency claims that, contrary to what a lot of its critics have said, these changes won’t affect its commitment to protecting clean air and clean water.
Dillen sees the Greenpeace case and the increase of lawsuits targeting free speech more broadly, as just one of the growing threats to organizations that work to preserve the environment — and the people who staff them. She spoke to ProPublica about the targeting of nonprofit groups, how the second Trump administration is different from the first and what keeps her up at night. This interview has been edited 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 having their lives transformed. One day they’re working on fulfilling grant requirements, the next they’re being accused of participating in a criminal “scheme.” Do you know of others in this situation?
Yes. I have heard of people being harassed at their homes. This is what happens when the federal government sends a signal that people who have lawfully been granted money by the government are actually scammers and fraudsters. This effort to criminalize people who have properly received government grants has outsized impacts online and in real life.
Is this new?
I can’t remember any instance of the kind that we’re seeing now. It’s not the first time that clients of ours have received threats. Earthjustice has received threats over the years. But it’s a very different thing when the federal government — the EPA administrator, the president himself — are personally targeting people online. That is fundamentally different and it’s having a fundamentally different impact.
Earthjustice recently hired an outside law firm to help the organization’s clients with SLAPP suits. Why did you feel the need to do that now?
SLAPP suits are not new. And in part that’s why we have anti-SLAPP legislation in many states. What’s happened now is the tone that the president is setting from the top, popularizing the idea that people trying to work in the public interest are actually hurting the country. That gives license to big corporations to be deploying highly disfavored tactics like SLAPP suits. I’m concerned that the attitude this administration is projecting about civil society is so negative that it will encourage more hostile activity by the private sector. I also fear that the very notable ruling in the SLAPP suit against Greenpeace will embolden other companies and other big law firms.
We’ve seen the administration make plans to rescind Harvard University’s nonprofit status. Do you worry about the same thing happening to environmental groups?
I worry about this administration in all ways. But of course, any action of that kind would be illegal. The president cannot weaponize the IRS by directing audits or stripping away tax-exempt status without due process and legitimate reasons. This kind of attack would strike at the core of our democracy and set a precedent that threatens not only environmental groups but all kinds of charitable organizations, from neighborhood churches to disaster relief and medical research institutions.
(Editor’s note: While many experts agree it would be illegal for Trump to instruct the IRS to remove Harvard’s nonprofit status, the president has argued that being tax exempt is “a privilege” that can be revoked. On Monday, Politico reported that Zeldin told reporters he did not think the government should broadly reconsider the nonprofit status of environmental groups.)
I’ve noticed that environmental leaders are more hesitant to talk publicly. What do you think they stand to lose by speaking out?
Across the board, this administration is deploying federal power and the power of the Justice Department, even the FBI, in ways that make it increasingly frightening for anyone to speak out. Now there is clearly a risk that by doing your ordinary job, you may become a target of the administration. For the recipients of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, that targeting has taken the form of a grand jury inquiry.
How is the new administration’s approach to environmental issues different from that of the first Trump administration?
In the first Trump administration, you had a very aggressive agenda to roll back environmental protections, but the method was not so different from what past administrations had done. It was largely hewing to the legally mandated process of proposing new rules, finalizing replacement policies and putting in place weaker policies. In retrospect, it looks quite conventional because there was at least an optical compliance with the normal process.
Now you have the administration pushing an even more radical agenda to deregulate and so far they’re dispensing with the usual process. So you have the declaration of the energy emergency, and that is becoming the pretext for making decisions without complying with the usual permitting process. You have this new announcement that regulated industries can apply for presidential exemptions that would relieve them of compliance obligations. Now note that that would apply to even Biden administration regulations that the Supreme Court has declined to stay. This is an end run around regulations that are on the books today.
So has Earthjustice’s strategy changed, too?
It has. When I imagined what our first cases would be, I imagined we would be fighting efforts to stay life-saving regulations, that we would be fighting over efforts to pause compliance obligations in federal court. And that certainly has been happening. But I would not have imagined that we would be working around the clock to challenge paused funding for farmers or that we would be fending off immediate efforts by the Trump administration to block congestion pricing in NYC.
I do believe there are remedies in the court for what is happening.
What if the courts find in your favor, but the administration doesn’t abide by their decision? Is that something that keeps you up at night?
I worry very much about losing the rule of law in this country.
Are you sleeping well?
No.
What do you think the targeting of environmentalists achieves or aims to achieve?
The Trump administration is very significantly bankrolled by the fossil fuels industry. It has been widely reported that the president promised to give many favors to the industry while asking for their financial support. And the president is delivering on those promises by taking aim at climate policies and the groups that have successfully advocated for them. There is, I think, something larger in play, which is that climate solutions are going to drive significant changes in our economy and the president is choosing to throw in with powerful incumbent industries rather than allowing for fair competition in the country. And one part of justifying this approach publicly is to silence groups who are effectively lifting up the reality of climate change and the urgent need to address it.
Do you fear that this country is becoming a dangerous place for people who do environmental work?
I hope with every fiber of my being that we are not becoming one of those countries. But do I see it as possible? Absolutely.
