In a controversial protest, two climate activists caused extensive damage to the U.S. Constitution’s display case at the National Archives. The act led to a closure of the Archives and led to significant criticism of environmental protest groups.
The Hill reported that Donald Zepeda, a 35-year-old from Maryland, and Jackson Green, a 27-year-old from Utah, deliberately threw a combination of pigment and cornstarch known as red powder over the case that protects the iconic U.S. Constitution.
This attack took place in a deeply symbolic space within the National Archives, specifically the Archives Rotunda, a place that also houses the Declaration of Independence.
Following the incident, the Department of Justice intervened promptly, leading to the indictment of Zepeda and Green.
The indictment was unsealed last Thursday in District Court, solidifying the gravity of the charges against the activists—felony destruction of government property. This rapid legal response underscores the severity with which the incident has been treated by federal authorities.
The federal response was swift and stern, with the Department of Justice stating that the duo caused upwards of $50,000 in damages.
This large figure comes from the extensive measures required to preserve the sanctity of the Constitution post-incident. The Archives Rotunda needed to be closed for four days to manage the careful cleaning process needed to restore the integrity of the display.
Clean-up crews faced a daunting task as the fine nature of the red powder made it impossible to be vacuumed and instead required meticulous manual cleaning. Work extended well into the nighttime hours, demonstrating the labor-intensive process of preserving national treasures against unexpected acts of vandalism.
Archivist of the United States, Colleen Shogan, described the Archives Rotunda as a "sanctuary for our nation's founding documents." In her statement, she emphasized, "Attacking such national treasures is not the same as vandalizing a public park or the wall of an office building—physically or symbolically.”
This remark places the act of vandalism within the broader context of national heritage and the symbolic violence that such actions represent.
The motivation behind this drastic measure, as argued by Zepeda's attorney, was not to cause harm but to force political action on climate issues.
The lawyer stated that Zepeda "never intended to damage the Constitution nor its case, nor anticipated the cost of cleaning it." They aimed to persuade the Biden administration to declare a climate emergency, a plea for immediate and decisive action against environmental crises.
However, the backlash was swift and severe, both legally and publicly. Jackson Green expressed his regrets in his writings post-incident. He admitted his realization that "destructive protest actions like the ones I carried out can lead to the opposite of our intentions by creating a negative response." He acknowledged that instead of garnering support, such acts might turn public sentiment against climate activism and fuel further societal discord.
The saga of Zepeda and Green illustrates that environmental groups have gone too far in their protests. It's one thing to protest, it's entirely another to deface one of the most prized artifacts of American history.
The public's reaction has been mixed, with many condemning the damage to an irreplaceable artifact of American history, while others empathize with the urgency of the climate crisis that motivated such desperate measures.
Yet, the overarching consensus seems to lean towards a rejection of destructive methods in civic protests. The implications of this act extend beyond immediate legal consequences for the activists involved.
As this case concludes with the sentencing of Zepeda and Green to over a year in prison each, the broader climate activism community may need to reassess their strategies if they want to get Americans to listen to them.
The fundamental question remains: How can activists effectively push for change without crossing lines that result in counterproductive outcomes?