A report obtained exclusively by The Daily Wire from the American Energy Institute (AEI) is raising new concerns about potential political bias and undisclosed conflicts of interest embedded in a key federal judicial resource, just as a dispute intensifies between its two institutional backers.
The report focuses on the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, a widely used guide for federal judges produced jointly by the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. At issue is a controversial chapter on climate science that AEI alleges was influenced by left-wing climate advocates with ties to active litigation against the energy industry.
The FJC, the research arm of the federal judiciary, has since removed the climate chapter from its version of the manual. But the National Academies, which is a co-publisher of the manual, has declined to follow suit, continuing to publish the full version online.
In response to criticism from Republican state attorneys general, National Academy of Sciences President Marcia McNutt indicated the organization does not plan to reconsider the decision. “The manual, including the chapter on climate science, will continue to be available on the Academy’s website,” McNutt wrote. “The National Academy of Sciences used the process that was jointly developed by the Academy and the Federal Judicial Center in the development of the 4th edition.”
AEI’s report argues the manual represents a departure from neutrality in judicial education. “The National Academies allowed activist-aligned climate theories and undisclosed litigation conflicts to be embedded in a reference manual relied upon by federal judges, then refused to remove the material even after the Federal Judicial Center stepped back from it,” said AEI CEO Jason Isaac in a statement obtained by The Daily Wire. “A taxpayer-funded institution that presents itself as a neutral scientific authority should not be laundering the legal theories of climate litigators into judicial guidance.”
According to AEI, the climate chapter presents disputed scientific and legal theories, particularly “attribution science,” which attempts to link specific weather events to human-caused climate change, as effectively settled. Those same theories are central to a growing wave of lawsuits seeking to hold energy companies financially liable for climate-related damages.
The report also alleges that the manual repeatedly cites experts and academics with direct ties to plaintiff-side climate litigation, including individuals affiliated with law firms and legal advocacy centers, without disclosing those connections.
Beyond the manual itself, AEI points to broader concerns about the National Academies’ institutional alignment and ethical conflicts. According to AEI, the organization receives a majority of its funding from federal agencies, to the tune of more than $200 million, or roughly 74% of its external funding in 2024, while also maintaining financial relationships with left-leaning foundations and climate advocacy groups, such as receiving funds from the shadowy Arabella Advisors.
AEI further notes that several senior leaders within the National Academies, including McNutt, President of the National Academies of Medicine Victor Dzau, and Executive Officer of the National Academies of Science Monica Feit, have a record of exclusively supporting Democratic political candidates, raising additional questions about ideological balance in an organization tasked with providing neutral scientific guidance.
The controversy comes amid ongoing congressional scrutiny. The House Judiciary Committee has opened an inquiry into whether outside groups, including the Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project, sought to influence how judges handle climate-related cases.
Against that backdrop, AEI contends the manual’s development reflects a broader concern: the potential blurring of lines between education and advocacy within institutions that play a critical role in the judicial system. Judicial reference materials are intended to help judges understand complex scientific issues, not to frame contested questions in ways that benefit one side of active litigation.
By continuing to publish a version of the manual that the judiciary itself has partially withdrawn, the National Academies is effectively standing by its process despite objections from some legal and political stakeholders. And in doing so, it risks reinforcing the perception that institutions designed to inform the judiciary are instead becoming vehicles for advancing highly contested, politically charged legal theories, before those arguments have even been tested in court.
