Trump Orders Investigation Into Judicial Climate Science Manual Over Bias Allegations

President Donald Trump has ordered federal officials to launch an investigation into the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and its affiliated organizations, following allegations that a judicial reference manual on climate science is biased and misleading. The directive comes after mounting criticism from conservative lawmakers, legal groups, and recent media reporting on the manual’s content, authorship, and use in federal courts.

The probe will focus on whether the manual, which is used to guide federal judges in cases involving scientific evidence, presents disputed climate science as settled fact and relies on sources with political leanings. The investigation will also examine whether the NAS and its affiliates should be suspended or barred from receiving future federal contracts or grants.

Background on the Manual and the Investigation

The Federal Judicial Center (FJC), together with the NAS, the National Academy of Engineering, and the National Academy of Medicine (collectively known as NASEM), produces the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. This manual is intended to assist federal judges in evaluating complex scientific issues that arise in court cases. The latest edition of the manual included a chapter on climate science, which quickly became a source of controversy.

Critics, including conservative lawmakers and legal organizations, have argued that the climate science chapter cited left-wing climate activists and advocates, presenting their views as established fact. This led to accusations that the manual was not neutral, but instead reflected a particular political perspective. In response to the backlash, the FJC retracted the climate science chapter from its official publication. However, the chapter remains available on the NASEM website, a point that has drawn further criticism from nearly two dozen state attorneys general, according to reporting by The Federalist.

"Our Taxpayers should not be funding Climate Fraud, and Judges should never have relied upon it. Thank you for your attention to this matter!"

— Donald Trump, President

President Trump addressed the issue directly in a post on Truth Social, accusing the NAS of being run by "Radical Left Dumocrats" and claiming that the manuals "have been totally DISCREDITED." He directed federal Suspension and Debarment officials to review the NAS’s conduct, citing the organization's receipt of hundreds of millions of dollars in government grants and contracts. The U.S. General Services Administration describes suspension and debarment as processes designed to prevent contractors who violate laws or policies from receiving federal funds.

Criticism and Political Response

The FJC’s Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence is intended as a neutral resource for judges, helping them apply scientific evidence standards in court. However, the climate science chapter drew sharp criticism from Republican senators, including Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Eric Schmitt, and Marsha Blackburn. In a letter to FJC Director Judge Robin Rosenberg, these senators argued that the manual presented "disputed scientific claims as settled fact" and relied on politically mediated sources.

During a recent Senate subcommittee hearing, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, who wrote the foreword to the manual, stated that she was not aware of the climate chapter’s content when she contributed and has not read it. "The entire purpose of this book really is not to take positions on contested and contestable matters; it’s to help judges, assist judges, with respect to scientific issues, but not … with any kind of slant either way," Kagan said. She added that FJC Director Rosenberg hopes lessons will be learned to avoid similar situations in the future.

Some conservative legal groups have called for the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate Justice Kagan for not recusing herself from an upcoming Supreme Court case involving climate-related tort claims, citing her association with the manual. These groups allege a conflict of interest due to her public endorsement of the manual, although Kagan has stated she did not review the contested chapter.

Ongoing Debate Over Judicial Resources

Although the FJC has removed the climate science chapter from the manual, the NASEM continues to host it online. The manual’s forensics guide authors have also faced scrutiny for past political donations and affiliations, as reported by The Federalist. The FJC maintains that the manual is a resource to help judges apply scientific evidence standards in court, not to advocate for particular policy positions. Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence.

Supporters of the manual argue that it is designed to provide judges with scientific context and background, rather than to influence policy or legal outcomes. Justice Kagan has emphasized the manual’s intended neutrality and the importance of avoiding bias in judicial resources.

Next Steps in the Investigation

The investigation ordered by President Trump will review whether the NAS and its affiliates should be suspended or debarred from receiving future federal contracts or grants. No specific timeline for the review has been announced. The outcome could have significant implications for how scientific expertise is provided to the federal judiciary and how future judicial resources are developed and vetted.

As the review proceeds, the debate over the role of scientific evidence in the courts—and the neutrality of resources provided to judges—remains a point of contention among lawmakers, legal experts, and advocacy groups.