24 AGs question federal funding of orgs refusing to remove climate agenda from manuals for judges

Two dozen state attorneys general have written to the secretaries of Transportation, Energy and War asking them to investigate the federal funding of two organizations due to the groups’ refusal to take action on a politically biased climate chapter in a reference manual that is used by judges – the attorneys arguing such impartiality could impact the integrity of the judicial system.

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, who leads the effort, told The Center Square that “taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund efforts that impartially influence judges.”

“Given multiple opportunities, [the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine] and [the National Science Foundation] still refuse to take responsibility for publishing a biased climate science manual violating their public commitments and legal obligations,” Knudsen said.

The National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) was founded to advise the government on issues related to science, engineering and medicine, while the National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal agency begun to “[support] science and engineering” in the nation.

Knudsen told The Center Square “the organizations producing these manuals and pushing their climate agendas on judges must be investigated and all funding to them should stop.”

“As attorney general, I will continue to sound the alarm until we put an end to their deception,” Knudsen said.

In February 2026, 21 state attorneys general requested that NASEM “remove a climate science section from the academies’ manual,” expressing concern over tax money promoting various partisan ideology, as The Center Square reported.

Following the raised concerns, the Federal Judicial Center “removed the Chapter from its online version of the Manual,” but neither NASEM nor NSF took action.

CEO of the American Energy Institute Jason Isaac told The Center Square that "omitting one chapter does not fix a manual that was built around litigation-driven climate narratives from the start.”

“The entire Fourth Edition should be rescinded and replaced with the Third Edition until Congress completes a full investigation into how activist lawyers and advocacy groups were allowed to shape guidance relied upon by federal judges,” Isaac said.

“Judicial education must explain scientific methods, not preload contested theories that benefit one side of multi-billion-dollar lawsuits,” Isaac said.

“Until that review is complete, the safest course is to return to the last edition,” Isaac said.

The other attorneys general signing the letter include those from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.

In their letter, the attorneys general call on Congress to “investigate NSF’s and NASEM’s violations of their duties and commitments.”

"By engaging in the biased process that produced the Chapter, NSF and NASEM violated their public commitments and statutory duties,” the letter said.

“Both NSF and NASEM claim that objectivity is an essential part of science and scientific integrity.... the Chapter’s design, funding, authorship, and review were all biased, and the Chapter’s content also reflects this lack of objectivity,” the letter stated.

NASEM has not yet responded to The Center Square’s request for comment, while NSF declined to comment.