America’s energy advantage depends on more than just the resources beneath the ground. It depends on the pipelines, terminals, and other infrastructure needed to move energy from where it is extracted to where it is needed. Without the ability to build and operate those systems under predictable rules, abundant resources cannot deliver affordable power at home or strengthen American influence abroad.
Recent history demonstrates the stakes. When Russia weaponized its natural gas supplies in the wake of the Ukraine conflict, Europe discovered the danger of relying on a hostile government for something as fundamental as energy. American liquefied natural gas helped provide an alternative, but only because the United States had the infrastructure necessary to produce and transport it.
Unfortunately, constructing this infrastructure has not been without controversy, and America’s ability to continue building to meet that increased need has been jeopardized. Opposition from environmental groups has sometimes escalated from political advocacy into on-the-ground efforts to obstruct construction of lawful projects. Americans have every right to oppose energy development and to protest. But when that opposition crosses legal boundaries, companies must be able to seek accountability in American courts and trust that the resulting judgments will carry weight.
That principle is now being tested by the legal fallout from the Dakota Access Pipeline protests.
After six years of litigation and a three-week trial, a North Dakota jury unanimously found Greenpeace liable for defamation, trespass, civil conspiracy, and other claims arising from its coordinated campaign against the operators of the pipeline, Energy Transfer. The court ultimately entered a judgment of approximately $345 million. In response to the lawsuit, Greenpeace has pursued a case in the Netherlands seeking relief that could effectively neutralize core findings from the North Dakota case.
Greenpeace has every right to appeal the judgment. That is how our legal system protects both accountability and due process. But that challenge belongs in the American appellate system. If the Dutch court rules in Greenpeace’s favor, the consequences could extend far beyond accountability for unlawful interference with one pipeline project. Such a ruling could undermine American legal sovereignty, weaken the authority of U.S. judgments, and create new uncertainty around the infrastructure on which American energy security depends.
Nevertheless, the suit has been filed in Amsterdam, alleging that Energy Transfer’s American litigation was an abusive attempt to suppress public participation. Protections against meritless lawsuits intended to silence speech serve an important purpose. They should not, however, become a vehicle for relitigating whether claims already sustained by an American jury had a legitimate foundation.
For the Netherlands and Europe more broadly, failing to respect that boundary would be counterproductive. The European Commission reports that the U.S. supplied more than a quarter of the European Union’s gas imports in 2025, helping the continent greatly reduce its dependence on Russian energy. Weakening accountability for unlawful interference in the construction of the pipelines, terminals, and other facilities that have made this shift possible would create a self-inflicted wound, adding risk to the American projects Europe increasingly relies upon for its own energy security.
Global energy demand is expected to grow significantly over the next 25 years, and domestic energy development will be critical to meet that need. However, energy projects require substantial capital investment, and investors value predictability. While they can accommodate strict regulations, lengthy reviews, and significant compliance costs, they are far less tolerant of uncertainty.
Expanding the possibility of parallel litigation in foreign jurisdictions may tip those scales. Not only could it make it more difficult to finance energy infrastructure projects domestically, but it could push capital to regions that have historically proven more volatile and less friendly to the U.S. and its allies, including Russia, Venezuela, and parts of the Middle East. Inevitably, consumers will bear the costs, and the energy security of America and its allies will suffer.
AMERICA IS HAVING THE WRONG DATA CENTER CONVERSATION — AND ITS SHOOTING US IN THE FOOT
Allied cooperation rests on mutual respect for both shared security interests and each nation’s sovereign legal authority. The Dutch court should reject any attempt to use its proceedings to second-guess matters decided in North Dakota. American officials should also make clear that foreign collateral litigation cannot be allowed to erode the authority of U.S. courts or the certainty needed to invest in critical infrastructure.
This does not require choosing between free expression and energy development. Lawful protest deserves protection, but unlawful conduct requires meaningful accountability. Foreign courts should not erase that line.
Jeff Duncan represented South Carolina’s 3rd District from 2011-2025 and served on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and as the Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy, Grid Security and Climate.