National Academies Resist Pressure to Remove Climate Change Information from Judicial Manual

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) is facing continued pressure from a coalition of Republican attorneys general to remove a chapter on climate science from its Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, a resource used by judges across the country. Despite initial compliance from the Federal Judicial Center to pull the chapter, the NAS has reaffirmed its commitment to keeping the information available, sparking further debate about the politicization of scientific resources for the judiciary.

Background: The Controversy Surrounding the Climate Science Chapter

The fourth edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence included a chapter dedicated to climate change, intended to equip judges with the scientific background necessary to handle cases involving environmental regulations and litigation related to fossil fuel producers. This inclusion drew immediate criticism from a group of Republican attorneys general, who argued the chapter was based on biased science. Ars Technica reports that the attorneys general initially succeeded in having the chapter removed from the version hosted by the Federal Judicial Center in February.

NAS Response and Continued Availability

However, the NAS maintains its own copy of the manual in its publication library. On March 1, the NAS issued a brief response to the attorneys general, stating it used the same procedures for the climate chapter as it did for all other chapters, procedures developed jointly with the Federal Judicial Center. The NAS confirmed that the manual, including the climate science chapter, would remain available on its website. Ars Technica obtained a copy of the NAS response.

Concerns Over Political Interference

The attorneys general, led by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, initially sent a letter on February 19 outlining their concerns and requesting a response by March 2. The Montana Department of Justice detailed the concerns, questioning the scientific basis of the chapter and requesting information on procedures to prevent similar inclusions in the future. The attorneys general expressed concern that biased theories presented as fact could compromise judicial impartiality.

The political interference has also prompted a response from authors of other chapters in the manual. An open letter, as reported by Ars Technica, decries the attempt to dictate which scientific fields are acceptable for judicial education, warning that it sets a dangerous precedent. The authors argue that allowing political actors to veto scientific content could erode the quality of the manual and ultimately harm the judicial system’s ability to handle complex scientific cases.

Funding and Future Implications

While the attorneys general lack direct control over the NAS’s funding, they noted the organization’s significant reliance on federal funding – over $200 million annually – suggesting that continued disagreement could be financially risky for the NAS. The Montana Department of Justice highlighted this point in its initial letter. The situation raises broader questions about the independence of scientific institutions and the potential for political influence on resources used by the judiciary.

On March 11, 2026, Attorney General Knudsen led a coalition of 24 states in urging the Trump Administration to investigate the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) and to cancel federal grants to the organizations. The Montana Department of Justice stated that the organizations continue to refuse to take responsibility for publishing a biased climate science manual.