Republican State AGs Urge EPA to Cut Funding for Environmental Law Institute
Nearly two dozen Republican state attorneys general have sent a letter to EPA chief Lee Zeldin, demanding the agency cease funding for the Environmental Law Institute, a left-wing environmental group accused of training judges in climate policy. The letter, spearheaded by Montana AG Austin Knudsen, argues that ELI’s Climate Judiciary Project (CJP) uses taxpayer money to push radical environmental agendas through the judiciary.
Knudsen, who led the letter, accused ELI of promoting ‘woke climate propaganda’ under the guise of judicial education. The letter highlights that ELI received approximately 13% of its 2023 revenue and 8.4% in 2024 from EPA grants, raising concerns that the group is leveraging public funds to influence judicial outcomes. The state attorneys general argue that ELI’s programs, while framed as neutral education, are actually designed to sway judges toward left-wing climate litigation.
The Environmental Law Institute defends its work, stating that its programs are fact-based and meet the standards of national judicial education institutions. However, critics, including groups like the American Energy Institute, claim that ELI’s efforts represent a coordinated campaign to advance the Green New Deal through the courts. They emphasize that public funds should not be used to support ‘political advocacy’ disguised as judicial education.
The letter also references the EPA’s recent efforts under Zeldin to cut $20 billion in grants under the Inflation Reduction Act, including $1.7 billion in diversity and inclusion grants. The state AGs argue that similar measures should apply to ELI, citing the agency’s commitment to reducing waste and misused taxpayer funds.
This issue aligns with broader concerns about ‘climate lawfare,’ a term used by lawmakers like Sen. Ted Cruz to describe efforts by left-wing activists and foreign entities to influence court systems and undermine American energy policies. The push for transparency and accountability in judicial education continues to be a key point of contention in the ongoing debate over environmental policy and judicial independence.