National Academies’ Climate Review Sparks Political Backlash Amid Trump Administration’s Regulation Rollbacks
Amid the ongoing debate over climate regulation in the United States, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) have found themselves at the center of a political storm. Critics are questioning the timing and motivations behind the institution’s accelerated review of the Trump administration’s plan to rescind an Obama-era climate regulation, which has been a focal point in the energy and environmental policy landscape.
According to recent reports, NASEM, which is largely funded by taxpayer money, is fast-tracking a study that could inform the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) potential repeal of the greenhouse gas endangerment finding. This regulatory move has sparked significant controversy, with some accusing the institution of having political motives given its ties to progressive organizations and the substantial federal funding it receives. The review, led by molecular biologist Shirley M. Tilghman, has been scrutinized by critics who argue that the process is rushed and may be designed to influence the EPA’s decision-making.
Conservative critics, including figures from the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute, have raised concerns about NASEM’s role in shaping the climate policy debate. They suggest that the institution, which receives a majority of its funding from federal sources, might have a conflict of interest in setting the terms of the climate discussion. This has led to accusations that NASEM is more aligned with progressive interests than with impartial scientific research.
The controversy deepens as the Trump administration continues its efforts to roll back the Obama-era regulation. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has been a vocal advocate for this policy shift, arguing that it would alleviate economic burdens on the U.S. energy sector. The 45-day public comment period for the proposed rule change is set to close in mid-September, adding to the intensity of the political and regulatory debate surrounding the issue.
While NASEM maintains that the study is funded by private donations and is meant to provide input for the EPA’s rulemaking process, the allegations of political influence and the entanglement of research bodies with ideologically driven funding remain significant points of contention in the ongoing discourse over the role of science in shaping public policy.
The debate over NASEM’s role in the climate policy discussion highlights the growing concerns about the integrity of scientific institutions in the face of political and economic pressures. As the public comment period approaches, the outcome of this review may have significant implications for future climate regulations and the broader energy policy landscape in the United States.