Green Scare: The FBI’s Targeting of Environmental Activists
Introduction:
In February 2023, a group of activists gathered at the University of Michigan to protest the expansion of Camp Grayling, the largest National Guard training facility in the country. The opposition had emerged when the military proposed leasing forest land managed by Michigan’s Department of Natural Resources, doubling the size of the training installation. However, the protest took an unexpected turn when two protesters splattered fake blood on the NSA recruiting table and Navy personnel. This incident marked the beginning of a series of events that would lead to the FBI investigating the activists as terrorism suspects.
The Misapplication of the Terrorism Label:
The treatment of the Stop Camp Grayling protesters as terrorists is part of a global trend of governments smearing climate and environmental activists as terrorists, known as the Green Scare. The FBI has a history of fixating on environmental protest movements as terrorism suspects, often based on thin evidence or no evidence at all. The FBI’s focus on ideological categories incentivizes them to open cases against these groups, raising concerns about the agency’s true motives and the infringement on First Amendment-protected activity.
The FBI’s Investigation of Stop Camp Grayling:
Following the protest at the University of Michigan, the local and federal authorities viewed the Stop Camp Grayling protests as more than just routine activism. The local sheriff’s office documented the incident as a hate crime against law enforcement, while the FBI recorded it as part of a terrorism investigation. Over the following months, the FBI’s counterterrorism investigation deepened, involving additional federal resources, coordination with military intelligence, and physical surveillance of the activists.
The Lack of Accountability in FBI Investigations:
One of the challenges in assessing the FBI’s investigations is the lack of incident data collected by the counterterrorism division. Without transparency, it is difficult to determine whether the FBI is truly investigating terrorism or simply targeting groups based on their political beliefs. The FBI’s own definition of domestic terrorism involves acts dangerous to human life or intended to influence government policy through intimidation or coercion. However, the investigated environmental groups have not posed a significant threat to human life, raising questions about the legitimacy of the investigations.
The PFAS Pollution Concerns:
The proposed expansion of Camp Grayling drew the ire of environmental and anti-militarism activists due to the base’s environmental record, particularly its use of PFAS “forever chemicals” in fire suppressant foam. PFAS contamination had already caused health warnings in local bodies of water, leading to opposition from a state regulator. The expansion would have endangered riparian ecosystems and posed a risk of contamination to nearby rivers and lakes. The Stop Camp Grayling movement emerged as a response to these concerns, organizing protests and raising awareness about the ecological impacts of the expansion.
The Involvement of Law Enforcement and Military Authorities:
The Michigan State Police became aware of the Stop Camp Grayling movement after a protest at the home of the Department of Natural Resources director and vandalism of historic police vehicles. Seeking assistance, the state police enlisted the help of federal authorities, with an FBI agent gathering intelligence on the protesters. The involvement of military intelligence and other alphabet agencies raised further concerns about the extent of surveillance and the justification for such actions. The fusion center for information sharing, the Michigan Intelligence Operations Center, claimed to adhere to strict guidelines but acknowledged potential collaboration with relevant partners if criminal activities were identified.
The Surveillance and Physical Operations:
As the Stop Camp Grayling Week of Action coincided with Operation Northern Strike, police and military officials were on high alert. The U.S. Army Counterintelligence Command was informed of FBI operations on the ground, and a Department of Homeland Security agent traveled to the area. Law enforcement officers were instructed to collect intelligence on the protesters, and the FBI decided to carry out in-person surveillance. Six FBI agents, along with two case agents, were involved in the physical surveillance, but many details of the operation plan were redacted, limiting transparency and accountability.
Conclusion:
The investigation of the Stop Camp Grayling protesters as terrorism suspects highlights the misapplication of the terrorism label to environmental activists. The FBI’s focus on ideological categories and the lack of incident data collection raise concerns about the agency’s motives and the infringement on First Amendment rights. The involvement of law enforcement and military authorities, as well as the extensive surveillance and physical operations, further underscore the need for transparency and accountability in such investigations. Ultimately, the Stop Camp Grayling movement achieved a victory when the proposed expansion was blocked, but the concerns over ecological impacts remain.
