Twenty-two state attorneys general have taken a united stand against what they describe as a “sham” independent review of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s (NASEM) climate‑science chapter. In a letter addressed to Congress and a slate of federal agencies, the AGs demanded that the agency‑funded organization halt its use of taxpayer dollars until a genuine, transparent review is conducted.
Letter outlines specific concerns
The attorneys general argue that NASEM’s recent removal of the climate chapter from its judicial reference manual was not a bona fide corrective action but a public‑relations move designed to deflect criticism. They contend that the review process lacks transparency, that reviewers have ties to climate‑litigation plaintiffs, and that the organization has a history of bias favoring activist agendas.
According to the letter, a truly independent review would require an external panel of experts who are not activists, litigators, or NASEM employees; full publication of the review methodology and findings; clear definition of the review’s scope; and a focus on the material criticisms raised by the AGs.
Industry and advocacy voices weigh in
O.H. Skinner, executive director of the Alliance for Consumers, called the National Academies’ actions a “feigned independent review” and warned that the group’s bias will not be forgotten. Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, added that NASEM used taxpayer money to create a scientific veneer for climate lawsuits that courts have already rejected, and that the timing of a follow‑up report appears intended to aid plaintiffs in the pending Suncor v. Boulder County Commissioners case.
Isaac emphasized that federal agencies should cut funding to an organization that is effectively laundering climate activism through the National Academies’ name.
Legal backdrop
The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in Suncor v. Boulder County Commissioners on October 5, a case that challenges whether a Colorado county can sue energy companies for alleged damages caused by greenhouse‑gas emissions. The AGs argue that NASEM’s climate chapter has been used to bolster such litigation, citing misquotations, contradictions, and alleged ghost‑writing by climate‑plaintiff attorney Michael Burger.
They further assert that the chapter’s removal was prompted only after presidential criticism and heightened public scrutiny, not because of any substantive correction of the content.
State participation
The coalition is led by attorneys general from Nebraska, West Virginia, Montana, and Tennessee. Signatories also include officials from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.
Skinner warned that “climate lawfare” is being used by “woke activists” to weaponize the courts and push policy through litigation, describing the effort as a dark‑money‑fueled apparatus that resists any changes to the contested manual.
National Academies response
To date, NASEM has not responded to requests for comment from The Center Square.
The attorneys general’s letter underscores a broader concern that organizations receiving federal grants must remain neutral and accountable, especially when taxpayer funds are used to support contentious policy debates.
Original reporting: KTBS 3 (Shreveport) — read the source article.
