President Donald Trump has ordered a federal review of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), accusing the organization of publishing politically biased climate guidance that influenced federal court decisions and contributed to costly climate-related litigation across the United States.

In a Truth Social post, Trump alleged that scientific manuals produced for the federal judiciary contained “fraudulent, biased, and misleading” information on climate change and asserted that federal judges relied upon these materials in major climate cases. He directed federal Suspension and Debarment Officials to review the conduct of the National Academy of Sciences and determine whether taxpayer funding should continue.

Trump Says Climate Guidance Was Politically Driven

Trump argued that the National Academy of Sciences abandoned scientific neutrality by publishing climate guidance that reflected political advocacy rather than objective science.

In his Truth Social statement, Trump wrote:

“The National Academy of Sciences has historically published analytical Scientific Manuals expressly for our Federal Judiciary. Of course, the Academy has been run by Radical Left Democrats who, it turns out, published fraudulent, biased, and misleading Manuals on Climate Change.”

He further claimed the manuals were used by judges deciding major climate lawsuits and asserted they had created “huge losses” across the country.

Trump concluded by stating:

“Our Nation’s Federal Judges deserve Facts and Science, not Political Fraud and False Science on Climate.”

The President then announced he was directing federal officials to review the Academy’s conduct and determine whether future taxpayer funding should continue.

The Controversial Climate Chapter

The dispute centers on the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence (Fourth Edition), a publication jointly developed by the Federal Judicial Center and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).

The manual is designed to help federal judges evaluate complex scientific evidence presented during litigation.

Its latest edition introduced a new chapter addressing climate science. Republican attorneys general from nearly 30 states argued the chapter lacked neutrality and was authored by individuals closely connected to climate litigation organizations, including Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.

The coalition, led by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, maintained that the authors’ involvement in climate lawsuits created conflicts of interest and undermined the chapter’s credibility.

Following those objections, the Federal Judicial Center withdrew the climate chapter from its version of the manual earlier this year.

NASEM, however, has continued making the chapter available through its own website.

Republican Attorneys General Raised Concerns

The Republican coalition argued the chapter went beyond explaining scientific methodology and instead promoted one side of ongoing climate litigation.

Critics contended that federal judges depend upon the manual because it has long been viewed as a neutral reference source when evaluating expert testimony.

Conservatives warned that any perceived political bias could influence judicial decisions involving billions of dollars in environmental lawsuits.

The controversy has since become another flashpoint in the broader national debate over climate policy, judicial impartiality, and the role of scientific institutions.

Supreme Court Questions Added to Debate

The controversy also reached Capitol Hill.

During congressional testimony, Senator Susan Collins questioned Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan regarding the climate chapter because she had written the foreword to the manual’s fourth edition.

Kagan responded that she had not personally reviewed the climate chapter itself and indicated that the Federal Judicial Center was working to improve its review process to prevent similar controversies in the future.

Potential Consequences

Trump’s directive does not itself suspend the National Academy of Sciences.

Instead, it orders federal Suspension and Debarment Officials to examine whether the Academy violated standards that could justify restricting or ending federal contracts or funding.

Should such action ultimately occur, it could significantly affect one of America’s oldest and most influential scientific advisory organizations.

The review also highlights the administration’s broader effort to reassess federal climate policy, scientific advisory panels, and the role outside organizations play in influencing government decision-making.

Related News Watchmen Coverage

• Global Oil Inventories Reportedly Near Critical Levels as Middle East Conflict Threatens Worldwide Energy Supply
• Data Centers Driving America’s Energy Crisis
• U.S. Oil Firms Finalize $60 Billion Iraq Energy Deals to Reduce Reliance on the Strait of Hormuz
• Trump Threatens New Tariffs on Canada Over Wildfire Smoke: “The Cost Is Incalculable!”

Prophetic Perspective

For many Christians, the growing conflict over climate policy extends beyond politics and economics into questions of truth, stewardship, and authority. Scripture repeatedly cautions believers to exercise discernment when evaluating competing claims and to seek wisdom rooted in truth rather than ideology (Proverbs 2:6; 1 Thessalonians 5:21). Regardless of one’s views on climate science, the controversy underscores the importance of transparency, accountability, and integrity in institutions that influence public policy and the judicial system. Christians are called to pray for leaders, judges, and those entrusted with positions of influence so that justice is administered impartially.

Conclusion

President Trump’s order marks another major escalation in his administration’s effort to challenge what it views as politically motivated climate policies embedded within federal institutions. While supporters see the move as restoring scientific neutrality and accountability, critics are likely to argue it politicizes respected scientific organizations. The outcome of the federal review could have lasting implications for future climate litigation, government-funded scientific research, and the relationship between scientific advisory bodies and the federal judiciary.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is President Trump reviewing the National Academy of Sciences?
Trump alleges the Academy produced biased climate guidance that influenced federal court decisions and has ordered a federal review of its conduct.

What is the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence?
It is a guide developed to help federal judges evaluate scientific evidence presented during litigation.

Why was the climate chapter removed?
The Federal Judicial Center withdrew it after Republican attorneys general argued it reflected advocacy rather than neutral scientific guidance.

Has the National Academy of Sciences been suspended?
No. Trump has ordered a review that could determine whether suspension or debarment proceedings are warranted.

Will this affect climate lawsuits?
The review itself does not change existing cases, but it could influence future use of scientific reference materials in federal courts.

---

Affiliate Disclosure:
Some links in my articles may bring me a small commission at no extra cost to you. Thank you for your support of my work here!