First reported here: The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), which relies heavily on taxpayer funding—receiving hundreds of millions from federal sources—is facing criticism over its expedited climate reviews. Critics argue these reviews may undermine the energy agenda implemented during the Trump administration.
Earlier this month, it was reported that NASEM is financing a review set to be published in September. This study aims to alert the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about its plans to withdraw the Obama-era classification of greenhouse gases as a danger, a move that many conservatives believe hampers U.S. energy production.
Molecular biologist Shirley M. Tilghman leads this initiative as an external advisor to the Science Philanthropy Alliance while also being a member of NASEM.
Critics have expressed concern about the timing, suggesting it may be politically motivated due to the rapid pace of these climate reviews.
The EPA has also recently announced significant cuts to its workforce and plans to shut down its research office as part of broader federal budget rationalization efforts.
Darren Baxt, director of the Energy and Environment Center at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, commented on NASEM’s decision to conduct swift research into greenhouse gases. He stated that this approach undermines the integrity of the National Academy. He pointed out that the announcement made on August 7 for a report due in September might seem rushed and raises questions about whether the report was pre-written.
Conservatives have long suggested that organizations connected to Arabella Advisors function as undisclosed “Dark Money” networks that affect policy debates and dictate research priorities subtly.
Given that about 85% of NASEM’s budget comes from federal funds, this situation creates additional concerns.
Travis Fisher, director of energy and environmental policy studies at the Cato Institute, argued that it appears NASEM is trying to maintain its status as a gatekeeper of credible science. He emphasized the necessity for government-funded organizations to consider potential conflicts of interest when addressing climate debates, given that heightened alarmism can lead to increased funding for research.
Fisher raised questions about who prompted NASEM’s involvement in these issues and whether ideological pressures influenced the organization’s decision-making regarding EPA policies.
James Taylor, president of the Heartland Institute, referred to NASEM as a “left-wing” organization, stating it is deeply reliant on government funding. He expressed disappointment over what he perceives as a shift from scientific integrity to a more politicized agenda.
Recent reports indicated that NASEM has accrued vast taxpayer funding while financially backing various left-leaning initiatives.
Taylor remarked, “It’s just a political organization now since we stopped being a science organization.”
Concerns have been raised about the qualifications of authors involved in climate science assessments—only 22% of them holding PhDs, a statistic comparable to the number of authors linked to environmental activism.
In response to inquiries, a NASEM representative stated that this fast-tracked study is funded by personal donations and is intended to inform public feedback requested by the EPA.
As the Trump administration moves to retract the findings on greenhouse gases made during the Obama era, a 45-day public comment period is set to close in mid-September. The 2009 findings declared that greenhouse gases threaten both public health and welfare for present and future generations, establishing the EPA’s obligation under the Clean Air Act to regulate these emissions.
In past statements, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin committed to rolling back the previous ratings, asserting that they had led to over $1 trillion in economic burdens. He touted regulatory relief as beneficial for American consumers, particularly in the automotive market.
In a final note, spokespersons have clarified that Arabella Advisors is not a funding source but rather a professional services organization providing operational support.
