Listen to the article
President Trump’s administration is escalating efforts to undermine climate science through systematic replacement of scientific data with politically motivated information, according to documents recently obtained through legal action.
Court-released records reveal that Energy Secretary Chris Wright established a secretive “Climate Working Group” comprised exclusively of climate change skeptics. The group was specifically tasked with producing a report designed to challenge the EPA’s Endangerment Finding, which establishes the scientific basis for regulating greenhouse gases as harmful pollutants.
The Environmental Defense Fund and Union of Concerned Scientists successfully sued the administration for violating the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires transparency and balanced viewpoints when government agencies consult external experts. Judge William G. Young of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled in January that the Trump administration had violated federal law by forming the group in secret with members who uniformly hold fringe views on climate science.
“The violations are now established as a matter of law,” stated Judge Young in his ruling, which ordered the release of over 100,000 documents related to the Climate Working Group’s formation and activities.
The five-member panel consisted exclusively of well-known climate contrarians: John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer. Scientific experts have criticized their report as being “rife with inaccuracies, cherry-picking data, misrepresenting scientific findings, and echoing the long-standing disinformation tactics of the fossil fuel industry.”
Despite the report’s scientific shortcomings, the EPA finalized a rule last month overturning the Endangerment Finding. While the agency claimed not to rely directly on the Climate Working Group’s report, environmental advocates note that the final action reflects similar disregard for established climate science.
Perhaps most concerning, the newly released documents reveal discussions about enlisting the same group of contrarians to produce the next National Climate Assessment (NCA), a congressionally mandated scientific report required by the 1990 Global Change Research Act.
In one email exchange from May, Department of Energy political appointee Travis Fisher wrote to Climate Working Group members: “Start thinking about whether you want to be involved in the next NCA. If I had to bet on it, I’d say each of you will be asked to help, if not join, the USGCRP and contribute to NCA 6.”
The administration has already taken steps that appear to undermine the scientific integrity of the next assessment. In April, it disbanded the author team for the Sixth National Climate Assessment, fired staff from the Global Change Research Program, and removed the program’s website along with all previous climate assessments.
This approach stands in stark contrast to how previous National Climate Assessments were developed. The most recent report, released in 2023, involved hundreds of scientific experts, thousands of research articles, and underwent rigorous multi-step peer review processes including federal agency scientists, National Academies review, and public comment periods.
Environmental organizations have joined a lawsuit challenging the repeal of the Endangerment Finding, arguing that the administration’s actions place Americans at increased risk as climate impacts intensify. Scientists confirm that the world is likely to surpass 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming within years, with worsening impacts including extreme heat waves, floods, intensified storms, and catastrophic wildfires.
“These actions are not just attacks on science; they also put people across the nation in danger,” said representatives from the environmental organizations. “As the deadly and costly impacts of climate change worsen, we need policymakers to rely on the best available science to help inform policies to limit climate change and protect communities.”
The legal challenge has succeeded in exposing the administration’s tactics, though the debunked Climate Working Group report remains available on government websites, raising concerns that it may continue to influence policy decisions despite its scientific shortcomings.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
9 Comments
Replacing objective data with cherry-picked information to challenge established climate science findings is deeply troubling. The American people deserve leaders who respect and uphold scientific integrity.
Agreed. Undermining climate science for political expediency is irresponsible and unethical. Transparency and impartial expertise should be the foundation for environmental policymaking.
This is a concerning development that undermines scientific integrity and transparency. The public deserves access to objective, evidence-based information on critical issues like climate change, not politically driven misinformation.
It’s disheartening to see the administration go to such lengths to distort climate science and bypass due process. The courts were right to intervene and protect the integrity of the policymaking process.
The creation of this secretive, biased advisory group is a clear attempt to undermine established climate science for political gain. We need leaders who will base decisions on facts, not ideology.
Forming a secretive advisory group stacked with climate change skeptics is an alarming attempt to subvert the scientific process and delay action on an urgent global threat. Kudos to the environmental groups that fought this in court.
Absolutely. Suppressing or distorting climate science for political gain is unacceptable. Glad to see the courts upholding scientific integrity and the public’s right to accurate information.
While I’m not surprised, I’m still dismayed to see such blatant disregard for scientific facts and public transparency. This sets a dangerous precedent that cannot be allowed to stand.
This is a disappointing abuse of power that erodes public trust. Policymaking should be guided by rigorous, unbiased research, not political agendas that ignore established scientific consensus.