Republican Lawmakers Suggest Cutting Off Funding for National Academies

The White House signaled interest early this month in investigating whether the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine should be suspended or debarred from federal funding, in response to a letter from 11 Republican lawmakers criticizing NASEM, particularly the climate science chapter of its Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence.

Former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows posted an article about the letter on X, adding, “The National Academies have weaponized tax dollars against President Trump for far too long. It’s time to end their contracts.” Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought responded, “On it.”

The letter argues that the climate science chapter of the reference manual “violates Gold Standard Science” because the peer review process did not include scientists with differing views on climate science and because its authors and funders had conflicts of interest. It heavily echoes letters sent in January and March by 27 Republican state attorneys general who successfully campaigned to remove the chapter from an online version of the manual.

NASEM did not respond to a request for comment on the chapter or any investigations from the White House.

The Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence is the main scientific resource of the Federal Judicial Center, which is the research and educational arm of the judicial branch. One letter from the attorneys general notes that the manual “has been provided to more than 3,000 federal judges and even more state court judges and others and has been cited in over 1,700 opinions,” including those of the Supreme Court. “So accuracy and impartiality in the Manual is vital,” the letter adds.

The attorneys general first criticized the chapter in January and asked the Federal Judicial Center, which authors the reference manual in partnership with NASEM, to withdraw the chapter. The FJC did so soon after, removing the chapter from its online manual.

Following the removal, eight Democratic lawmakers wrote to the FJC’s director requesting its reinstatement. Authors of the reference manual also disputed the chapter’s removal in an open letter in March, describing the peer review process as “extensive and rigorous.” The letter adds, “The coordinated effort by 27 state attorneys general to remove that peer-reviewed content is a direct challenge to the independence of the federal judiciary and an attack on a thoroughly vetted exposition of climate science that those attorneys general do not like.”

The chapter remains available on the Academies’ website, with National Academy of Sciences President Marcia McNutt rebuffing the request for its removal. The attorneys general then turned to the administration, suggesting that agencies consider suspending or debarring NASEM from federal funding, and that congressional committees investigate NASEM as part of their oversight or appropriations processes.

The congressional appropriations process for fiscal year 2027 is currently in its early stages. Federal funding made up nearly half of NASEM’s revenue in 2024, most of it coming from the Department of Transportation, the Department of Defense, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the National Science Foundation.

The National Research Council, which is NASEM’s operating arm, already experienced a sharp drop in federal funding in 2025, losing more than 40 federal contracts and around 200 staff, according to Science.

Criticism of NASEM

Republicans on the House Science Committee raised similar but separate concerns about NASEM in April, in this case suggesting that there are conflicts of interest on NASEM’s currently active Committee on Attribution of Extreme Weather and Climate Events and Their Impacts. That committee is working on an update to its 2016 report on attribution science, which links climate conditions to human or other causes.

The letter, led by Committee Chair Brian Babin (R-TX), states that attribution committee members have “extensive involvement in climate accountability litigation—whether through judicial education programs, amicus briefs, or affiliations with organizations funding plaintiffs.” This “calls into question” their ability to meet NASEM’s standards for committees, including that members should be objective, open-minded, and demonstrate an appropriate range of perspectives on the relevant issues.

The examples the letter raises are two committee members who have helped lead or participated in climate-related education programs for judges. One of these members also works as a researcher for an organization that “produces attribution studies frequently cited in relevant litigation,” the letter states. It also notes that the committee has private sponsors that “are known for their progressive environmental leanings,” including the Bezos Earth Fund and the Heising-Simons Foundation.

The letter does not suggest suspending or debarring NASEM from federal funding, and the House Science Committee did not respond to a request for comment on whether they would support doing so.

NASEM also came under fire last year from Rep. James Comer (R-KY), the chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, for its decision to study whether current evidence supports the 2009 endangerment finding, which underpinned the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, after the agency proposed rescinding it. (The agency finalized the rescission in February.)

The decision to fast-track a review of the EPA proposal “appears to be inconsistent with the purpose of the National Academies and a blatant partisan act to undermine the Trump administration,” Comer wrote in a letter to McNutt in September, citing potential bias arising from certain members of the committee, use of private donor funds, and previous “questionable decisions” under McNutt’s leadership.

Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee also criticized NASEM more broadly last year, stating in their appropriations bill report for the National Institutes of Health that the committee “remains concerned with the lack of objective nonpartisan research methods, including inaccurate references to data and removal of panel participants, demonstrated by the National Academy of Science, Engineering, and Medicine.” The report goes on to urge agencies to “consider alternative means for obtaining objective scientific review.” The bill report does not provide examples of the issues it mentions, and the language does not appear in the finalized bill report for fiscal year 2026.