Meanwhile, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology investigates the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) over its stewardship of this nation’s scientific efforts.
Posted by Leslie Eastman
Back in March of this year, I reported that a coalition of 24 state attorneys general, spearheaded by Montana’s Republican Attorney General Austin Knudsen, urged the Trump Administration to scrutinize every dollar of federal funding flowing to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).
The attorneys general cite what they describe as pervasive left-wing bias masquerading as “independent” scientific expertise.
Specifically, this letter focuses on the climate science section of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence (created to help both lawyers and judges understand and manage complex scientific and technical evidence in court cases). It asserts that “The Chapter” was created to sway judges in high-stakes climate lawsuits. The states’ AGs argue that its preparation was funded by groups that support climate-related litigation, written by scholars who reportedly lack strong expertise in climate science and have connections to advocacy groups involved in such cases, and was influenced by a lawyer representing climate plaintiffs.
Now President Donald Trump has called for a review of the “Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence”.
Alluding to recent changes to the manual’s section on climate change, the president argued the government-backed handbook was “totally discredited” and claimed it had been used to improperly inform recent rulings on environmental issues.
Writing in a post on his social media platform Truth Social on Sunday evening, Trump said he had ordered “federal suspension and debarment officials” to review the National Academy of Sciences’ “Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence,” a decades-old publication produced in partnership with the Federal Judicial Center and aimed at assisting federal judges on issues of science and technology.
The president claimed the National Academy was “run by Radical Left” Democrats and that the nonprofit organization “published fraudulent, biased and misleading manuals on climate change.”
…[I] in February, the Federal Judicial Center, the government’s education and research agency serving federal courts, said it had removed the climate science chapter from its version of the reference manual. The move came just days after a group of Republican state attorneys general penned a letter to Congress arguing the handbook presented a “highly biased, agenda-driven view” of climate change targeting oil and gas companies.
The National Academies receives more than $200M annually in federal funding.@POTUS has ordered a comprehensive review of NASEM’s conduct.
Why should an institution that attempts to undermine the independence of the judiciary continue to receive millions in taxpayer dollars? pic.twitter.com/PB1qE6tsgh
— Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) July 20, 2026
There are potential ramifications for the Supreme Court, as Justice Kagan wrote the foreword to the manual.
Dozens of American state and local governments, mostly in Democratic-led municipalities, have sued oil companies over their role in climate change, but those cases all remain in preliminary stages. None have gotten close to trial yet.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments over a legal question in one of the cases, brought by the city and county of Boulder, Colo., in its next term. The issue is whether federal law blocks the case from proceeding, and the decision could have major ramifications for the entire batch of litigation.
Conservative groups have argued that Justice Elena Kagan should recuse herself from the Boulder case because she wrote the foreword to the judges’ manual.
Meanwhile, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology has been investigating NASEM over its “administration of federally supported activities, including its stewardship of taxpayer resources, scientific advisory processes, and compliance with applicable federal requirements.” The committee recently accused NASEM of withholding information requested by the Committee as part of its ongoing oversight of the organization’s federally supported activities.
Apparently, NASEM officials are claiming that this information is “privileged”.
The Committee is concerned by NASEM’s decision to withhold responsive information based on broad assertions of privilege. While the Committee recognizes that certain interests may warrant protection in limited circumstances, generalized or categorical assertions of privilege do not excuse noncompliance with congressional oversight requests.
Privilege claims are to be asserted narrowly, substantiated on a document-by-document basis, and asserted only where legally appropriate.
As the Supreme Court has recognized, Congress possesses broad investigatory authority that is inherent in its legislative function. The Committee’s request seeks information necessary to evaluate existing law, assess the effectiveness of federal programs, and determine whether legislative reforms are warranted. Assertions of privilege should therefore be evaluated in light of Congress’s constitutional oversight responsibilities.
It is genuinely refreshing to see long-overdue scrutiny applied to institutions that have too often cloaked their narratives in the garb of “consensus” science while demanding that their “research” be funded with American tax dollars.
When taxpayer dollars fund studies and guidance that may shape litigation, regulation, and national policy, transparency is not optional but essential, and Congress has every right to demand full visibility into how that money is used.
The Constitution is quite clear: Congress controls the purse, and it cannot fulfill that duty if gatekeepers of “expertise” decide accountability is somehow beneath them.
