House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman James Comer announced Wednesday he is investigating the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) over an expedited review that possibly was designed to undermine President Donald Trump’s agenda.
NASEM is fast-tracking a review of how greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) might endanger public health, following the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) move to roll back the Endangerment Finding, a landmark Obama-era climate finding. Comer flagged the review for potential “partisan aims” and called on NASEM President Marcia McNutt to provide all communications regarding the proposed Endangerment Finding rule change and the organization’s funding sources to the committee.
“The Committee is concerned that this study is being conducted with partisan aims in mind, as the National Academy of Sciences has made several questionable decisions in past years while under [Ms. McNutt’s] leadership, exposing potential partisan bias. In 2021, the organization endorsed President Biden’s selection for his Top Science Advisor, despite his history of failing to disclose conflicts of interest and understating the contributions of his colleagues in developing a biotechnology. The organization has also conducted politicized DEI-focused research and studies. Members of the committee conducting this fast-tracked study have also shown partisan bias,” Comer said Wednesday. “Given these positions and affiliations, it is unlikely these individuals can conduct an impartial scientific review and the Committee has serious concerns that the National Academy of Sciences appears to be enabling the aforementioned partisan conflicts of interest.”
National Academies of Sciences President McNutt Re Endangerment Finding Letter 09032025 by audreystreb
The EPA announced its intent to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding on July 29, which EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin described as tantamount to “driving a dagger into the heart of the climate change religion.”
“Conservatives believe that we can both protect the environment and grow the economy. It’s not a choice. We are choosing to do both. And on top of it, that’s what the American public wants,” Zeldin said on the conservative “Ruthless” podcast on July 29.
Comer wrote in the letter that he is concerned that the NASEM review results might have been predetermined and is led by a member that appears to have ties with “left-wing” groups. Comer also requested in the letter any communications over potential conflicts of interest among members assembling the review.
Congress established the National Academy of Sciences [NAS] in 1863 to “investigate, examine, experiment, and report upon any subject of science or art” when called upon by the government, according to the Smithsonian.
“This decision appears to be inconsistent with the purpose of the National Academies and a blatant partisan act to undermine the Trump Administration,” Comer continues in the letter.
The NASEM review will include “focus on evidence gathered by the scientific community since 2009,” and will be released in September to inform the EPA on its decision, according to the organization’s website. The review is being “self-funded” through NASEM funds and endowments, spearheaded by molecular biologist Shirley M. Tilghman who also serves as an external science advisor to Science Philanthropy Alliance, which has been linked to the massive progressive consulting network known as Arabella Advisors through the New Venture Fund, Fox first reported.
“We do studies without individually being asked all the time. … EPA asked EVERYONE, including the National Academies, to comment on revoking the endangerment finding. This is exactly what government does when it proposes some new regulation that will impact Americans. Shouldn’t everyone with an opinion on the matter of climate change inform this decision?” McNutt told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Although I do find it fascinating that so many people are so very scared about what the science will say that they want to undermine the study before they even know what it says. Honestly, if you want the science facts, we will give them to you.”
The review has also raised concerns among some energy policy experts that the group is advancing political objectives under the guise of independent science.
“The National Academies refused to investigate the origins of COVID without a formal government request, but now they’re rushing to counter a Trump administration climate report. … That’s not science, it’s politics,” CEO of the American Energy Institute Jason Isaac told the DCNF, referencing an April X post from McNutt. “The fact that the lead researcher has ties to Arabella Advisors, the nerve center of the left’s dark money machine, only confirms this is a coordinated attack on Trump’s Energy Dominance Agenda.”
Steve Milloy, a senior legal fellow at the Energy & Environment Legal Institute, also told the DCNF that “they’re going to thwart Trump’s entire energy agenda. … The NAS wants to disrupt what Trump is doing on greenhouse gasses.”
“There’s no way for the NAS to do a review of climate science in any reasonable timeframe,” Milloy said. “I would not be surprised if this report is already written and … they’re going to rubber stamp the report and produce as fast as possible and get it into the litigation.”
Tilghman did not respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
