Republican AGs Demand Removal of Climate Guide

Sign reading Department of Justice on a stone wall with a shadow

Republican attorneys general are demanding the removal of a climate science chapter from a taxpayer-funded judicial reference manual, warning that partisan bias could influence federal courts to rule against American energy companies in multi-billion dollar lawsuits.

Story Snapshot

19 Republican AGs challenge National Academy of Sciences over biased climate chapter in federal judicial manual
Chapter authors advocate fossil fuel phase-out, trained judges on climate litigation without disclosing conflicts of interest
Federal Judicial Center already removed the contested chapter after warnings from 24 Republican AGs
NAS receives over $200 million annually in taxpayer funding, raising accountability concerns

Taxpayer Dollars Funding Partisan Agenda

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen led a coalition of 19 state attorneys general in demanding the National Academy of Sciences withdraw a climate science chapter from its “Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Fourth Edition.” The manual serves as a guide for federal judges deciding complex cases. The NAS receives over $200 million annually in federal funding, including $133 million allocated for fiscal year 2025 alone, plus additional grants from agencies like the National Science Foundation and Pentagon. This substantial taxpayer support makes the organization’s potential political bias particularly troubling for those concerned about government accountability.

Undisclosed Conflicts Raise Red Flags

The contested chapter was co-authored by Jessica Wentz and Radley Horton from Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and Climate School. Both authors have publicly advocated for rapid fossil fuel phase-out and have trained judges specifically on climate litigation tactics. Reviewers of the chapter include Michael Burger, who serves as legal counsel for Honolulu in lawsuits against energy companies, and Michael Gerrard, who has publicly stated that litigation is essential for achieving decarbonization goals. These undisclosed conflicts represent serious ethics concerns when the manual could influence judicial decisions in ongoing cases worth billions of dollars.

Federal Courts Already Taking Action

The Federal Judicial Center moved first, removing the climate chapter from its version of the manual after receiving warnings from more than 24 Republican attorneys general earlier this month. This precedent validates concerns about the chapter’s partisan nature and potential to compromise judicial impartiality. Montana AG Knudsen called the situation “unacceptable” and stated he expects a clear explanation from NAS leadership, including outgoing President Marcia McNutt and incoming president Neil Shubin. The chapter remains on the NAS website despite the Judicial Center’s action, prompting the formal demand letter from the attorney general coalition representing states including Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Protecting Courts From Political Science

Jason Isaac, CEO of American Energy Institute, emphasized that taxpayer-funded institutions must not “launder contested theories” into active lawsuits, warning this undermines public confidence in federal courts. Will Hild of Consumers’ Research called on NAS to “pull this biased chapter and stop using taxpayer resources for their radical political agenda.” The controversy emerges amid a wave of climate lawsuits filed by Democratic-led states and cities against oil companies, seeking to hold energy producers liable for emissions. Republican attorneys general view the manual chapter as endorsing plaintiff methodologies without presenting counterarguments, effectively stacking the deck against American energy producers.

Broader Foreign Funding Investigation

In a related development, the same coalition of 19 Republican AGs requested the Department of Justice investigate potential Foreign Agents Registration Act violations involving more than 150 climate nonprofits. These organizations reportedly received approximately $2 billion from foreign foundations, including groups with alleged ties to the Chinese Communist Party such as the Climate Imperative Foundation and Oak Foundation. The attorneys general argue this foreign funding may influence U.S. energy policy without proper disclosure under FARA requirements. This investigation builds on a December 2025 request targeting similar concerns about foreign influence on American climate policy, demonstrating a coordinated effort to expose potential foreign interference in domestic energy decisions.

Implications for Energy Independence

The outcome of this confrontation could significantly impact ongoing climate litigation against American energy companies and the future credibility of taxpayer-funded scientific institutions. If successful, the attorneys general effort would weaken the scientific foundations plaintiffs use in lawsuits seeking billions from fossil fuel producers, while bolstering defenses for energy companies that provide thousands of jobs and support red state economies. The controversy highlights growing concerns about whether institutions chartered by Congress to provide independent scientific advice have been compromised by partisan activism. With President Trump back in office, this scrutiny of climate-related government spending and potential judicial manipulation aligns with broader efforts to restore accountability and protect American energy independence from foreign and domestic activist pressure.