Comer Demands National Academy of Sciences Turn Over Withheld Documents on Biased Climate Review

From the Congressional Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

Documents obtained suggest the NAS intended to release a biased review to undermine the EPA and support radical climate activists

WASHINGTON—House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) is continuing an investigation into the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s (NAS) decision to fast-track a review without authorization from a federal agency of issues related to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed rescission of its 2009 Endangerment Finding. Evidence obtained by the Committee suggests NAS designed the review to undermine any final action by EPA and provide radical environmental activists with ammunition for legal challenges and other advocacy against EPA. In a letter to NAS President Neil H. Shubin, Chairman Comer emphasized Congress’s authority to review all internal NAS records to ensure the organization, which operates under congressional charter, is fulfilling its mission without bias and demanded that NAS produce documents it continues to withhold from the Committee.

“NAS’ haste appears based on a desire to publish a review before public comments were due on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s July 29, 2025, proposal to rescind its 2009 Clean Air Act Endangerment Finding concerning greenhouse gas emissions (Endangerment Finding).  The 2009 finding acted as the linchpin of the Obama and Biden Administrations’ imposition of immensely burdensome Clean Air Act regulations to implement their ideologically driven climate agenda,” wrote Chairman Comer. “NAS has produced nearly 1,500 pages of documents, communications, and records. 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. Compounding the Committee’s concerns, NAS has refused to produce documents that could further clarify the motives and course of NAS’ review. I therefore insist that NAS now produce to the Committee certain withheld documents.”

In September 2025, Chairman Comer launched an investigation into NAS’ decision to conduct a fast-tracked review of scientific evidence concerning greenhouse gas emissions without a request from a federal agency. Documents obtained indicate NAS predetermined the review’s findings, intended to influence Congress and the courts, and sought to keep streams of funding flowing for activist climate research and advocacy. In addition, NAS failed to assure only individuals without conflicts of interest could draft and review the study and failed to publicly disclose the extent of those conflicts. 

“NAS is currently refusing to produce to the Committee documents… NAS also is refusing to produce minutes from closed virtual meetings held on August 20 and 25-26, 2025, as well as other documents, claimed to be ‘privileged’ deliberative documents, containing ‘internal communications between National Academies staff regarding their internal evaluation of the study committee members’ potential conflicts-of-interest,’” continued Chairman Comer. “Congress, as the body that created and oversees NAS, is entitled to review any and all internal NAS documents to assure NAS is carrying out its deliberations and other activities in manners consistent with Congress’ legislative purpose for the NAS and relevant law. It is fundamental to the Committee’s legislative purposes to understand the sources of bias, to include any potential conflicts of interest, within NAS studies intended to assist in or influence the development of policy, especially when NAS documents already produced show NAS’ work was meant to influence Congress, the Courts and the activities of Executive Branch agencies.”

Read the letter to the National Academy of Sciences here.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 6 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
25 Comments
KevinM
August 30, 2026 10:06 am

“Federal Government Funding … Federal agencies provide more than half to upwards of 85% of the funding for the Academy’s activities and specific studies… Funds come from various government departments, such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and others that request specific scientific research or reports”

Seems like press releases and big commentary are superfluous.

KevinM
Reply to  KevinM
August 30, 2026 10:14 am

“In September 2025, Chairman Comer launched an investigation into NAS’ decision to …”
Reads to me like the boss is launching an investigation of what his own employees have been up to. In ‘the old days’ I’d have some example like Gates or Welch or Iococa launching investigations of Microsoft, GE or GM. CEO names for popular corporations have disappeared from my echo bubble – except maybe Elon but that name comes preloaded with too much other politics

David Wojick
Reply to  KevinM
August 30, 2026 11:25 am

NAS people are not federal employees. It is not part of the government.

gyan1
August 30, 2026 10:13 am

Releasing the documents would expose them as engaging in activism not science which is why they will resist and obfuscate. The fraudsters are successfully keeping the brainwashed in the fold.

Reply to  gyan1
August 30, 2026 10:22 am

Wasn’t there supposed to be a 3rd release of “Climategate” emails?

Enter “Climategate” into Google AI and this comes up:

The Investigations and ExonerationFollowing the leak, independent committees, scientific bodies, and government agencies conducted eight major international investigations. These included reviews by the UK House of Commons, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the National Science Foundation.

The investigations universally concluded that no scientific misconduct or fraud had occurred. The core data and the scientific consensus that human activity drives global climate change remained fully robust and valid.

Reply to  Steve Case
August 30, 2026 10:27 am

Yeah, but secretly funded bloggers said otherwise, so…

Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 30, 2026 11:20 am

You should finish your sentence (-:

SxyxS
Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 30, 2026 1:36 pm

” scientific consensus ” is the misconduct.

ironargonaut
Reply to  TheFinalNail
August 30, 2026 3:04 pm

No, bloggers showed otherwise by publishing the documents

DipChip
Reply to  Steve Case
August 30, 2026 11:30 am

Scientific consenses concerning the laws of nature is the definitian of athoritarian indoctrination

DipChip
Reply to  DipChip
August 30, 2026 11:36 am

Scientific consensus concerning the laws of nature is the definition of authoritarian indoctrination.

Scissor
Reply to  DipChip
August 30, 2026 1:39 pm

I’ve heard that. Everyone wants a piece of the action.

gyan1
Reply to  Steve Case
August 30, 2026 2:38 pm

“The investigations universally concluded that no scientific misconduct or fraud had occurred.”

Big surprise that the fraudsters concluded no fraud had occurred…. The bait and switch fraud is conflating the tiny human forcing to a climate crisis.

ironargonaut
Reply to  Steve Case
August 30, 2026 3:02 pm

NO scientific misconduct was found. Yet, the emails they didn’t dispute validity of, showed otherwise. I am supposed to believe them or my lying eyes. The one that stood out the most to me was two scientists discussing how to tweak their output so that they show at least some warming during the medieval warm period. They didn’t want anyone to be able able to critique their findings based on that. In laymen terms that is called curve fitting and is unscientific. Knowingly being unscientific is misconduct. Unless, you want to argue that using voodoo to generate results is unscientific but not misconduct. It’s almost like they never intended to find misconduct.

David Wojick
August 30, 2026 11:17 am

NAS is arguably the leading US climate alarm activist group. This endangerment defense, the alarmist judicial manual chapters and the attribution report all need to be investigated.

Reply to  David Wojick
August 30, 2026 11:39 am

What David W said ^^^^!!!!

Reply to  David Wojick
August 30, 2026 11:52 am

At this point Comer should threaten a resolution in both House and Senate telling the Executive and Judicial branches that NAS has not fulfilled its duties and that any objection to the change in the Endangerment finding and the proposed Judicial manual should be ignored until such time as NAS provides full transparency about how their decisions were made and on what basis.

Reply to  David Wojick
August 30, 2026 3:00 pm

DW, I agree. But the reality is they won’t be. Comer is like Jordan—full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
OTOH, I am cautiously optimistic. The judicial manual got stopped cold by state AGs in a relative blink. The attribution report is NAS ‘nonscience’. This Endangerment defense will for sure get lawfare support, but I don’t think it much matters. As Menton has pointed out, the filed lawfare suits against the repeal are being slow rolled by DC Courts. There are two possible reasons, both ‘positive’.
One is the courts plan to outlast 47. That is probably not a wise move given the weakness of the potential Dem 2028 presidential slate compared to Vance and/or Rubio. For example, Harris is leading in some polls, yet IOWA Dems refuse to campaign with her.
The other is that the EPA endangerment repeal is so carefully done (not just my opinion, but also Menton’s previously given here) that these Lawfare attempts would otherwise rapidly and abjectly fail. Too embarrassing, so slow roll.

August 30, 2026 11:22 am

Real Scientists: “Publish all of the data!”

Fake Scientists: “Let’s hide what we are doing from public scrutiny.”

August 30, 2026 11:23 am

Will be about as effective as oversight of Fauci GoF funding was at NIH—prohibited but happened anyway.

SxyxS
Reply to  Rud Istvan
August 30, 2026 1:52 pm

Wasn’t Climategate also about “using a trick” ?

In terms of GOF the trick was
Look at the left hand: “Obama proudly announces end of GOF in the USA in 2014”
The hidden right hand started the same year creating dozens of biolabs in Ukraine.
(I wonder where the sudden, massive need( and money, and know how and tech) for so many labs came from???
And who is so crazy to invest so much money into a conflict region and the most corrupt country of Europe on top;?
+ any new government may shut everything down.

And hasn’t DARPA started around 2014 contacting big pharma for their pandemic protection plans?

Seems outsourcing was always part of the prohibition plan?
Just as the CiA outsources stuff to the Mi6 or other 5 eyes nation when they do illegal stuff in the USA.

Mr.
August 30, 2026 11:58 am

Could this prompt another “Harry Read Me” tranche of files revealing conspirators doing their thang, just like the Climategate cabal?

Rick C
Reply to  Mr.
August 30, 2026 1:59 pm

It should prompt a DOJ/FBI visit to NAS headquarters and seizure of the records in question. Hand cuffs and perp walks can come later.

Bob
August 30, 2026 3:11 pm

All agencies need to revisit their responsibilities to those they are taking funds from in this case the US government. That doesn’t mean you have to march lockstep with those funding you but you do owe them absolute transparency. No transparency no funding. I would begin withdrawing funding starting today, let the chips fall where they may.

roywspencer
August 30, 2026 3:36 pm

My experience serving on an NAS review committee many years ago led me to the conclusion that the NAS is tasked (and funded) by government agencies to come up with “supportive” studies (wink wink, nudge, nudge) that support whatever those agencies want to do, or to support needed spin to protect the agency’s interests. They invite experts from the research community to participate who are chosen to “load the dice” against dissenting opinions. In our case, the final report we produced had changes made that we had not been given the chance to review. As usual, follow the money.