Radical climate organizations’ dangerous activism was on display again in February, when a coalition of environmentalist groups sued the federal government over its repeal of an unscientific, politically-motivated 2009 endangerment finding.
For context, in 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had to determine whether or not greenhouse gases (GHGs) like carbon dioxide imperil Americans’ health. In 2009, relying on faulty assumptions that policy groups like Independent Women have since debunked, the EPA declared that GHGs do imperil health. On that basis, it hyperregulated America’s vehicles and natural gas sector, causing serious harm to the U.S. economy without delivering promised emissions reductions.
Who are the organizations that brought the lawsuit? Judging by some of their names—Earthjustice, Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council—they seem to be focused on protecting nature. However, the only thing they are preserving is their ability to restrict American prosperity. With their latest lawsuit, they seek to place a barrier squarely in the middle of the U.S. energy market.
America is blessed with natural resources. Just one part of America’s energy market, offshore oil and gas drilling, contributed over $30 billion to the economy in 2024 while $900 billion annually from related royalties conserve public lands and natural resources through the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). The U.S. government is responsible for ensuring American companies are free to harness these plentiful resources, guided by rules. In our system, it is private actors that decide how to lawfully advance their economic interests—not the government.
To this end, the EPA enacted the largest deregulatory measure in U.S. history on February 12, 2026, repealing the endangerment finding. When it looked at data and computer modeling, it realized that Democratic administrations had gotten it all wrong. According to the EPA, even if America “were to eliminate all GHG emissions from all vehicles, there would be no material impact on global climate indicators through 2100.”
That did not sit well with the environmentalist crowd. Mere days after the endangerment finding repeal, 17 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) joined forces to file a lawsuit against the EPA, arguing the agency breached its legal obligations. This lawsuit is no symbolic gesture, as the case will likely reach the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs argue the EPA violated the 1970 Clean Air Act, but the Clean Air Act never identified carbon dioxide as a pollutant at all, as U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has noted.
The endangerment finding repeal slashed regulations and is estimated to save American consumers $1.3 trillion. The slew of 17 environmental NGOs seem to disregard this, and want to undo a clear win for the U.S.
Organizations like those who filed the lawsuit are seasoned and well-funded. Constant legal filings are their trusted strategy. Two of these groups sued the Department of Energy and the EPA in 2025 for assembling a panel to examine climate data because they didn’t like the government-selected experts.
What is really going on here? Are these organizations really just naive, or is something more nefarious at play?
Some of these radical NGOs are likely the modern-day version of the “useful idiots” of the Cold War: Americans who were unwitting Soviet puppets. Soviet leadership funded Western activist organizations, like the World Peace Council, to advance Moscow’s insidious totalitarian agenda. The Soviets spent over $600 million on this effort, or over $2 billion in inflation-adjusted terms.
There are striking parallels to today. For example, the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has direct ties to Chinese state actors in addition to being apologists for Beijing. The situation became dire in 2018 that two members of the U.S. House of Representatives opened an investigation into whether the NRDC should have to register as a foreign agent of China.
It’s also not a pure coincidence that these same groups oppose U.S. pipelines, mining, drilling, and offshore exploration, but don’t take issue with China or other bad actors engaging in the same activities. Therefore, the American government must uncover, and then publicly expose, what is really behind this array of subversive organizations. Given the complex web of funding and motives, this is no small task, but unmasking the climate movement’s enigmatic actors and funders is a critical step that will remove barriers to American opportunity while maintaining a clean environment.
Several radical environmental groups are currently being investigated by a coalition of 26 attorneys general, led by Attorney General Austin Knudsen of Montana, for malign foreign ties. That is commendable, but there is more to be done.
Recently, the former U.S. Deputy National Security Advisor proposed that groups aligned with American foes could have their tax-exempt status removed. There is nothing drastic about depriving these radical groups of unearned benefits if they support our foes.
Entrusting radical climate organizations with protecting the U.S. is like letting a five-year-old drive your Ferrari. It’s time to take away their keys and remove tax-exempt status from compromised climate groups.
The endangerment finding that breathed life into, and sustained, the radical climate movement for nearly two decades is no more. Now, the radical climate movement has exposed itself as being what it calls its opponents: agenda-driven and unscientific.
Sydney Rodman is a visiting fellow with Independent Women’s Center for Energy and Conservation.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
