Congress Urged to Investigate Environmental Law Institute’s Ties to China
A significant advertising campaign is urging Congress to look into the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) due to its connections with Chinese entities. State Armor, the organization behind the campaign, is pushing lawmakers to examine ELI’s funding sources, information-sharing efforts, educational programs for judges, and its policy work in the U.S.
The campaign features a television advertisement running in Washington, D.C., alongside mobile billboards positioned on Capitol Hill and outside ELI’s headquarters, as well as targeted digital ads.
The advertisement highlights concerns about China’s indirect influence on America, stating, “China doesn’t always influence America directly. Sometimes it uses a middleman.” It accuses ELI of providing special briefings to officials from the Chinese Communist Party, training American judges on climate litigation, and supporting lawsuits that impact U.S. energy production. Consequently, it claims that these actions restrict American energy, raise prices, and increase dependency on China, concluding with a demand for answers regarding ELI’s true allegiance.
On September 16, Michael Lucci, founder and CEO of State Armor, sent a letter to congressional leaders reiterating his request for an investigation into ELI. The letter targeted prominent figures on various Senate and House committees responsible for judiciary and energy matters.
In his letter, Lucci referred to previous correspondence from June where he expressed serious concerns about ELI’s long-term interactions with China. He asserted that ELI has collaborated with Chinese governmental and academic institutions while promoting policies in the U.S. that could jeopardize American energy production and national security.
He emphasized how these concerns have intensified, noting that research revealed ELI’s provision of analysis to Chinese stakeholders and the formation of deep connections with institutions linked to the People’s Republic of China. This potentially allows a foreign adversary access to American legal systems.
At the same time, he pointed out that ELI has educated numerous American judges on climate issues while advocating policies that largely evade scrutiny regarding China’s practices.
Lucci also addressed ELI’s stance on data centers and the vital energy infrastructure needed to advance artificial intelligence development. He cautioned about a new pattern emerging where as China becomes more competitive in technology, ELI is actively opposing the development of the necessary infrastructure in the U.S.
Lucci urged Congress to explore the connections of ELI’s activities, questioning if these were coincidental or part of a more alarming trend. He reiterated the need for an investigation to understand ELI’s relationships and their implications on U.S. policy.
He argued that organizations like ELI, which educate judges and influence public policy, should face appropriate scrutiny especially when their actions may inadvertently benefit a foreign adversary. He asserted that ELI might be a significant yet under-examined avenue of Chinese influence within American legal and policy frameworks.
Lucci concluded by stressing that Congress has both the authority and obligation to analyze these relationships and called for prompt action.
Lucci was quoted saying that ELI has become a conduit for Chinese interests, significantly affecting U.S. policies and priorities. He pointed out the irony of ELI providing insights into American regulations to Chinese officials while simultaneously training American judges on relevant litigation. Additionally, he mentioned the risk posed to the U.S. energy market and infrastructure due to such dynamics.
John Czwartacki, co-founder of Public Policy Solutions, echoed these sentiments, highlighting the dangers of ELI’s connections with Chinese entities as they simultaneously push legal actions in the U.S. under the guise of climate activism. He expressed alarm that this pattern could strategically undermine America’s strengths.
Following the publication of State Armor’s July report, multiple lawmakers have voiced their concern regarding ELI’s associations. Senator Tom Cotton remarked on the inappropriateness of judges engaged with Communist China, while Senator Marsha Blackburn criticized the lack of justification for U.S. judges receiving training from such groups. There are broader implications suggested about how these practices could contribute to the CCP’s influence.
The July report revealed that ELI’s Climate Judiciary Project had educated over 2,000 American judges on climate-related matters and suggested that this initiative may bias courts towards climate activism in ongoing lawsuits against energy companies. It also disclosed ELI’s relationships with various Chinese universities and governmental bodies, claiming that its China International Business Dialogue on Environmental Governance offers detailed analyses of environmental regulations to Chinese officials.
Lucci remarked at the time on ELI’s relationship with China as a channel for the latter to receive updates on U.S. regulatory affairs, hinting at the potential implications for American energy policy influenced by such exchanges. He raised concerns about the reasons ELI believes it could change Chinese behavior if it is also possible that China may aim to affect American policy through ELI.
