The National Academies of Sciences is facing new pressure from House investigators and 22 state attorneys general over allegations that its climate-related work has favored environmental litigants and advocacy positions, with critics calling for withheld documents, an outside review and possible suspension of federal funding.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine is facing intensifying scrutiny from Congress and state attorneys general over allegations that its climate-related reports and judicial materials have crossed from independent scientific analysis into advocacy.
Twenty-two state attorneys general sent a letter last week asking Trump administration officials to investigate the organization and consider suspending or debarring it from federal funding.
Their demand came as House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., separately pressed the National Academies to turn over documents that he says were withheld from an ongoing congressional investigation.
The disputes center on several climate-related projects, including a judicial reference manual, a report involving climate-attribution science and the National Academies’ fast-tracked review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed reconsideration of the Obama-era endangerment finding.
In an Aug. 27 letter to current National Academies President Neil Shubin, Comer said records already obtained by his committee raised questions about whether the organization had approached the EPA issue with a predetermined position.
“This evidence suggests NAS intended to prepare and release a biased review to undermine any final EPA action to rescind the Endangerment Finding and provide ammunition to environmental partisans for attacks in the courts and other public discussions,” Comer wrote.
The National Academies did not respond to requests for comment from Just the News concerning Comer’s letter or the attorneys general’s funding request.
The attorneys general are also questioning the independence of a review the organization recently announced concerning a controversial climate-science chapter in a federal reference manual for judges.
The National Academies announced earlier this month that it would temporarily remove the chapter while examining how it had been developed.
“That chapter has received considerable scrutiny, and … NAS has determined that questions about the processes used to develop the chapter warrant an independent review,” the organization stated.
The 22 attorneys general argue that the review does not appear sufficiently independent because key details about its membership, procedures and scope have not been publicly disclosed.
They described the process as potentially a “sham” because of the “secrecy around all aspects of the review process.”
“A truly independent review would appoint an external panel; use reviewers who are not activists, litigation participants, or NASEM employees; publish the review process and findings; identify the review’s scope; and ensure the review’s scope addresses the material criticisms of the Chapter,” the attorneys general wrote.
The controversy arose from an update to an influential scientific evidence manual for judges jointly published by the National Academies and the Federal Judicial Center.
The manual included a chapter on climate science that drew criticism from Republican attorneys general and other opponents who argued that its authors and cited materials were too closely connected to climate litigation.
The Federal Judicial Center removed the chapter from its own version of the manual, while the National Academies initially declined to do so.
President Donald Trump later called the chapter “fraudulent, biased, and misleading.”
A coalition of 27 Republican attorneys general had earlier written to the Federal Judicial Center, arguing that the climate material went beyond the manual’s stated purpose of explaining scientific principles and risked influencing how judges evaluate evidence in climate cases.
Among the authors who drew scrutiny were Jessica Wentz and Radley Horton, both associated with climate programs at Columbia University.
Wentz and Horton previously co-authored a paper advocating litigation as one avenue for advancing climate policy.
That paper was also written with attorney Michael Burger, who represents Honolulu in its ongoing climate lawsuit against energy companies and is of counsel with Sher Edling, a law firm involved in climate litigation.
Burger’s work was cited four times in portions of the manual addressing climate litigation, attribution of responsibility and the role of courts in addressing alleged climate harms.
Critics contend that the manual did not adequately disclose Burger’s active involvement in climate lawsuits.
The attorneys general compared those concerns to criticism previously directed at the Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project, which has provided educational programs to judges.
Critics of that initiative have argued that its training materials exclude scientific and legal perspectives that could benefit defendants in climate-related litigation.
The renewed scrutiny comes as the Supreme Court is preparing to hear a major climate case involving Boulder, Colorado.
The outcome could affect dozens of similar climate lawsuits proceeding through state courts, increasing the significance of disputes over scientific materials supplied to judges and the role of climate-attribution research in litigation.
The attorneys general also cited a separate National Academies report on attribution science released this summer.
Attribution science attempts to quantify the extent to which specific weather events can be linked to greenhouse-gas emissions or broader climate trends.
Critics argue that some researchers and advocates have explicitly developed or promoted the field for use in climate lawsuits.
Burger participated in the National Academies’ attribution-science process and gave a presentation to the committee in November 2024.
During that presentation, he said he was “actively involved” in Sher Edling’s cases and discussed how attribution science could assist plaintiffs in climate litigation.
Burger had also described climate litigation in a 2020 Union of Concerned Scientists webinar as a “key part of the overall solution” to global warming.
Another member of the National Academies attribution committee, Delta Merner, leads the Union of Concerned Scientists’ climate accountability campaign, which supports climate litigation and policies aimed at reducing fossil-fuel use.
The latest allegations of institutional bias have also been fueled by documents turned over to the House Oversight Committee.
The National Academies provided approximately 1,500 pages of records as part of the committee’s investigation into its decision to accelerate a review of the EPA’s proposed reconsideration of the federal endangerment finding.
The organization’s stated mission is to provide independent and objective advice without conflicts of interest.
Among the records obtained by investigators was a July 2025 email from then-National Academies President Marcia McNutt to Carol Cicerone, who oversees an endowment supporting the organization.
The EPA had recently proposed reconsidering the 2009 endangerment finding, which underpins numerous federal greenhouse-gas regulations.
McNutt asked whether endowment money could be used to support an expedited review of the issue.
If the EPA succeeded in rescinding the finding, she wrote, “This would mean an end to federal investment in CO2 reduction. Their position is based on a very biased report by a handful of climate deniers.”
Critics, including Comer, say the language suggests that senior National Academies leadership had already formed a judgment about the EPA proposal before completing an independent scientific review.
The organization’s defenders could argue that scientific experts are permitted to hold informed views while still overseeing rigorous review procedures, but the documents have fueled demands for greater disclosure about how the project was conceived, funded and staffed.
Funding has now become a central element of the dispute.
The 22 attorneys general argue that federal grants and taxpayer dollars should not support reports or materials that they believe favor one side of active climate litigation.
O.H. Skinner, executive director of the Alliance for Consumers, supported the request for additional federal scrutiny.
“The Attorneys General are right to question NASEM’s federal funding and seek a charter review. As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments in the [Boulder] case, neutrality needs to be restored, and the radical left-wing apparatus behind these cases questioned at every turn,” Skinner said in a statement.
The National Academies has not been found by a court or federal agency to have violated its charter, misused federal funds or improperly assisted climate plaintiffs.
The current disputes involve allegations from lawmakers, attorneys general and advocacy groups concerning conflicts of interest, transparency and institutional neutrality.
Whether the Trump administration will suspend funding, initiate a broader review or take other action remains unresolved.
What is clear is that the organization’s climate work — from EPA reviews to judicial guidance and attribution science — is now receiving substantially greater political and legal scrutiny over whether an institution created to provide independent scientific advice has maintained that standard in some of the country’s most consequential climate-policy disputes.
Original article
Comments