Energy Group Urges DHS To Block Greta Thunberg Entry

The Department of Homeland Security is being asked to consider whether climate activist Greta Thunberg should be allowed into the United States after a conservative energy group highlighted recurring disruption that follows her appearances abroad. Critics argue her actions have resulted in vandalism, obstruction, and arrests, and they say those patterns raise legitimate safety and public order concerns for any country she visits. This piece examines the request from Power the Future, revisits notable episodes from Thunberg’s public life, and makes a direct case for denying her entry to protect American soil and institutions.

A nonprofit focused on workers in reliable energy, Power the Future, recently urged DHS to review Thunberg’s visa eligibility because of a pattern of disruptive behavior reported wherever she shows up. From a conservative standpoint, the concern is straightforward: foreign nationals who repeatedly provoke unrest should face scrutiny before being granted entry. The organization frames this as both a right and an obligation for the United States to evaluate potential risks to public order and national assets.

An energy worker advocacy group sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security urging it to review whether climate advocate Greta Thunberg – along with others – should be allowed entry to the nation due to safety concerns arising after recent bannings she has faced elsewhere and the pattern of “disruption” that appears to follow her.

Founder and executive director of energy group Power the Future Daniel Turner told The Center Square: “Secretary [Kristi] Noem and the Trump Administration are working tirelessly to keep America safe, and we urge them to take a hard look at whether agitators like Thunberg should be allowed onto American soil.”

Power the Future is a nonprofit dedicated to Americans working in reliable energy sources and sent the letter concerning Thunberg’s entry to the United States.

Turner told The Center Square that “everywhere Greta Thunberg goes, chaos follows.”

Those quoted concerns strike a chord with many conservatives who see activism that repeatedly leads to arrests and damage as less about conscience and more about spectacle. The worry is not theoretical; past episodes tied to Thunberg and her allies have involved high-profile stunts that veer into vandalism or risk to cultural sites. Lawmakers and advocates argue the government must act to prevent foreign actors from importing disruption that affects American citizens and property.

Take the recent incident in Venice, where critics reported Thunberg-associated activity that dyed water green, stirring outrage among locals and observers who view the stunt as performative and harmful. Such acts feed the narrative that some climate demonstrations are engineered primarily for media attention and not for constructive dialogue. To conservatives who prioritize order and practical energy solutions, these spectacles undermine serious debate about energy policy and public safety.

Her 2019 Atlantic crossing on a so-called zero-emissions yacht is another example that fuels skepticism. The racing yacht touted as environmentally pure had none of the basic comforts most of us expect on long voyages, and the contradiction of celebrity environmentalism traveling with large entourages afterward did not go unnoticed. For those who value consistency and common-sense energy policy, these gestures look hypocritical and serve to alienate moderate voters who prefer clear policy over performative activism.

Power the Future’s argument is simple and blunt: the United States should use its sovereign discretion to bar entry to foreign nationals whose actions repeatedly lead to vandalism, obstruction, or arrests overseas. From a Republican perspective, that discretion is an essential tool for protecting public order, infrastructure, and historical sites. It is also a signal that the U.S. will not import chaos under the guise of protest when there are real consequences for law-abiding citizens.

“The United States has both the right and the obligation to evaluate whether the entry of a foreign national poses a risk to public order, infrastructure, or significant cultural and historical assets,” Turner wrote.

“Ms. Thunberg’s ongoing involvement in actions that result in vandalism, obstruction, or arrests overseas raises legitimate questions as to whether similar disruptions could occur on U.S. soil,” Turner wrote.

Given those concerns, the recommended policy response from conservatives is direct: review visa applications from repeat agitators and deny entry when credible threats to public order exist. This is not about silencing dissenting views; it is about exercising national authority to prevent imported disruption that threatens citizens and national assets. The principle is plain—sovereign borders exist to protect a country’s peace and institutions.

Ultimately, the debate over Thunberg’s presence in the U.S. reflects a larger clash about how free societies balance protest with public safety. Conservatives argue that when a foreign visitor’s history shows a pattern of chaos, the right course is to refuse entry and let those issues remain someone else’s problem. Denying a visa, in this view, is a reasonable, targeted response to protect American communities and preserve order.