Climate Activists Receive Sentences For Defacing National Archives

Two climate activists, Donald Zepeda and Jackson Green, were sentenced this week for their roles in a February 2024 vandalism incident at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., where they defaced a display case housing the U.S. Constitution with red powder. Zepeda, 35, of Maryland, was sentenced to 24 months in prison, while Green, 27, of Utah, received an 18-month sentence.

The activists, who are members of the climate protest group Declare Emergency, claimed responsibility for the incident, which they said was part of their broader mission to raise awareness about climate change. The stunt occurred on Valentine’s Day, with both men dumping a fine red powder on the encasement of the U.S. Constitution in the Rotunda of the National Archives, a revered symbol of the American republic.

The vandalism not only defiled an important national treasure but also caused significant disruption. The Rotunda, which is a key exhibit at the National Archives, had to be closed for four days while the mess was cleaned, preventing thousands of visitors, including school groups, from accessing the U.S. Constitution during that time. The cost of the cleanup exceeded $58,000, according to U.S. Attorney Matthew M. Graves.

In addition to the cleanup expenses, the attack caused public outrage, as the U.S. Constitution is one of the most important historical documents in American history. The defendants, however, maintained that the purpose of their actions was to draw attention to the urgency of climate change, an issue they argue requires immediate and drastic action.

Zepeda and Green were both charged with felony destruction of property. Zepeda pleaded guilty on August 15, 2024, while Green pleaded guilty on August 13. The two men did not limit their protest to the National Archives; Green had been involved in another act of vandalism just three months earlier. In November 2023, he was charged for defacing a memorial to Black Civil War soldiers, the Shaw 54th Regiment Memorial, located at the National Gallery of Art.

The two men’s defense was that the red powder, a tempera paint powder, was harmless and would not cause permanent damage. They argued that no powder had entered the case containing the Constitution, implying that the historical document itself had not been harmed. The group’s statement following their sentencing called the charges “harsh,” asserting that their intent had never been to cause lasting harm to the Archives, but rather to make a political statement about the looming threat of climate change.

In addition to their prison terms, they were each ordered to pay $58,600 in restitution for the cleanup costs. They were also required to complete 100 hours of community service, which must include cleaning up graffiti—a condition aimed at making amends for their destructive actions. Furthermore, both men were banned from entering Washington, D.C., and all museums across the United States.

Critics contend that while civil disobedience has long been a tool of social movements, vandalism and destruction of property cross a line. The defacement of national monuments, even for a political cause, raises questions about whether there is a responsibility to respect public property and historical symbols. In this case, the U.S. Constitution—seen as a sacred document—is a powerful symbol of American democracy, and many feel that desecrating it in the name of protest undermines the very freedoms it represents.

Over the past few years, climate activists in the UK and across Europe have been resorting to similar tactics, targeting world-renowned art pieces to make their political statements. In 2022, members of the group Just Stop Oil threw soup at Vincent van Gogh’s Sunflowers at London’s National Gallery, while in Italy, climate activists smeared oil on the 16th-century Laocoön and His Sons statue in the Vatican Museums. They sparked outrage worldwide, raising concerns about the balance between protest and respect for cultural heritage. Zepeda and Green’s red powder attack on the U.S. Constitution seems to mirror these European actions in both its symbolic nature and the desire to capture global attention. While the tactics differ in scale, they reflect a growing trend among climate activists to use acts of vandalism as a form of civil disobedience, believing that such dramatic gestures are necessary to highlight the urgency of the climate crisis. However, as these protests escalate, so too does the backlash, with critics arguing that defacing iconic cultural symbols does little to advance the cause of climate action and instead risks alienating the very people whose support is needed for meaningful change.