‘Leftist’ taxpayer-funded academy sparks backlash after move against Trump agenda
Fox News has reported that the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) is under scrutiny for expediting a climate review that some critics believe is an attempt to undermine the Trump administration’s energy agenda. The review, funded internally by NASEM, is set to be released in September to influence the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to rescind the Obama-era greenhouse gas endangerment finding.
Leading the effort is molecular biologist Shirley M. Tilghman, a member of NASEM and an External Science Advisor to the Science Philanthropy Alliance. Critics are concerned about the timing and potential political motivations behind the accelerated review.
Conservatives are questioning the relationship between NASEM and progressive consulting group Arabella Advisors, which is known for influencing policy debates through its funding networks. With 85% of NASEM’s budget coming from federal funds, there are concerns about conflicts of interest.
Experts like Travis Fisher from the Cato Institute and James Taylor from the Heartland Institute have raised questions about NASEM’s objectivity and credibility. Taylor described NASEM as a “leftist” and “statist” institution that is heavily reliant on government funding.
In response to the allegations, a NASEM spokesperson clarified that the fast-track study is funded by private donations to inform public comments requested by the EPA. Similarly, a spokesperson from the New Venture Fund, a fiscal sponsor for the Science Philanthropy Alliance, distanced the organization from Arabella Advisors’ influence.
The controversy surrounding NASEM’s involvement in the climate debate comes as the Trump administration moves to revoke the greenhouse gas endangerment finding, citing its detrimental impact on American energy production. The public comment period for the proposal is set to end in September.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has been vocal about rolling back the assessment, which he claims has imposed costly regulations on the U.S. economy. The Trump administration’s efforts to provide regulatory relief and affordable choices for consumers have been met with support from industry stakeholders.
As the debate over climate regulations intensifies, the role of organizations like NASEM in shaping scientific assessments and policy decisions will continue to be scrutinized. The intersection of research institutions, funding sources, and political agendas raises important questions about transparency and accountability in the scientific community.
