Attorneys General Demand Answers Over Climate Science Chapter in Federal Judicial Manual—NAS Defends Its Work

In a dramatic escalation of political pressure on scientific institutions, a coalition of Republican attorneys general has demanded that the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) justify its inclusion of a chapter on climate science in the latest edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. The controversy erupted after the attorneys general questioned whether the chapter was grounded in “balanced or sound science” and called for immediate clarification on the procedures used to develop it.

The dispute began when the attorneys general, led by Montana’s office, sent a formal letter to the NAS on February 27, 2026, requesting a response by March 2. The letter posed pointed questions, including: “Why did the National Academies include a chapter on climate science that is not based on balanced or sound science?” and “What procedures will the National Academies establish to prevent similar advocacy-based chapters in future editions?” The tone of the inquiry suggested deep skepticism about the scientific consensus on climate change and implied that the NAS had allowed political advocacy to seep into its work.

For weeks, Ars Technica and other outlets attempted to determine whether the NAS had responded before the deadline. On March 10, it was confirmed that the academy had issued its reply two days early. The response, published as the final page of a government PDF, was terse but firm: the NAS stated that it used the same rigorous, jointly developed procedures with the Federal Judicial Center to create the climate chapter as it did for every other chapter in the manual. The academy also confirmed that the manual—including the contested climate science chapter—would remain available on its website.

The brevity of the NAS response leaves the attorneys general with few clear options. Their letter had hinted at leveraging the academy’s reliance on federal funding, suggesting that producing politically unpopular reports could be “risky.” However, the attorneys general have no direct authority to control or withhold that funding, limiting their ability to force changes.

The controversy has sparked a broader backlash from the scientific and legal communities. In an open letter published on March 2, dozens of authors from other chapters of the Reference Manual condemned the political interference. They emphasized the manual’s value as a trusted resource for judges navigating complex scientific evidence and warned that allowing political actors to dictate which scientific fields are “disfavored” would undermine the integrity of the judicial process.

“If political actors can determine which fields of established science are disfavored and off-limits to judicial education, every scientific discipline relevant to complex litigation becomes vulnerable to the same tactic,” the authors wrote. “The integrity of the process by which judges evaluate scientific evidence should not be subject to political interference or veto.”

The long-term implications of this episode are troubling. If chapters can be removed or suppressed whenever they conflict with current political priorities, it will become increasingly difficult to recruit top scientists and legal scholars to contribute to the manual. Over time, the quality and reliability of the material could erode, leaving judges less equipped to handle cases involving complex scientific issues. Ultimately, society as a whole stands to lose from such erosion of scientific integrity in the courts.

As the debate continues, the clash between political pressure and scientific consensus highlights the ongoing struggle to preserve the role of evidence-based knowledge in American institutions.

Tags: National Academies of Sciences, climate science, political interference, scientific evidence, federal judicial manual, attorneys general, Republican pressure, scientific integrity, judicial education, open letter, peer review, climate change denial, scientific consensus, legal scholars, federal funding, political controversy, scientific institutions, evidence-based policy, long-term implications

Viral Sentences:

• “If political actors can determine which fields of established science are disfavored and off-limits to judicial education, every scientific discipline relevant to complex litigation becomes vulnerable to the same tactic.”
• “The integrity of the process by which judges evaluate scientific evidence should not be subject to political interference or veto.”
• “The real danger is long term. If chapters continue to get deleted any time they run afoul of the current political winds, then it will become increasingly challenging to get the best scientists and legal scholars to contribute to the manual or its peer review.”
• “Over time, the quality of the material will decay, leaving judges less well-prepared to face cases with a heavy scientific component. Society as a whole will end up the loser.”
• “The attorneys general questioned whether the chapter was grounded in ‘balanced or sound science’ and called for immediate clarification on the procedures used to develop it.”

,