Environmental groups have launched a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration, accusing it of secretly commissioning a climate report written by well-known skeptics in order to weaken U.S. climate protections. The disputed study, published by the Department of Energy (DOE), is now at the center of a battle over whether science is being manipulated to justify rolling back crucial environmental safeguards. Critics say the report misrepresents evidence, ignores consensus research, and was created in violation of federal transparency laws.
Funding Cuts and Censored Reports
The Trump administration has long been accused of undermining climate science, cutting funding for research, dismissing federal scientists, and even removing prior editions of the National Climate Assessment from government websites. Now, environmental groups argue, the government has taken the next step: rewriting scientific findings themselves.
Read: Judge Blocks Trump-Era Crackdown on DEI in Schools and Universities
A Secretive Climate Report
The DOE report, titled “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate,” was commissioned in March 2025 by Energy Secretary Chris Wright. Five scientists, all recognized for their contrarian climate views, were handpicked to conduct the review in secrecy. “The secret report was produced by a set of known climate contrarians who were commissioned to write this report that’s full of inaccuracies,” said Rachel Cleetus of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Also read: Fear of ICE Raids Keeps Thousands of Latino Kids Out of School
Questionable Findings and Claims
Delivered in May, the report argued that climate change may not be as damaging as widely believed, attributing much warming to natural cycles or solar changes rather than fossil fuels. It claimed sea-level rise is not accelerating and emphasized potential benefits of increased carbon dioxide for plant growth, findings sharply at odds with established scientific consensus.
Also read: Man Who Faked Death to Escape Charges Convicted of Raping Former Fiancée
Scientific Community Pushback
Independent experts swiftly denounced the review. “I would say that it presents an incomplete and misleading picture of how climate change is affecting the United States,” said Phil Duffy of Spark Climate Solutions. Critics allege the report cherry-picks evidence, misrepresents peer-reviewed research, and ignores overwhelming proof that human activity is driving dangerous warming. Ben Santer, a prominent climate researcher, added: “This DOE report is in service of a political goal, it’s not credible science.”
Also read: Trump Sends Federal Agents to Clear Homeless Camps in Washington D.C.
Energy Secretary’s Defense
Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a former oil and gas executive, has openly expressed skepticism about mainstream climate research. Earlier this year, he described climate change as “a by-product of progress,” arguing that affordable energy is a higher priority than curbing emissions. He also suggested the administration may “update” past National Climate Assessments, reports typically authored by hundreds of scientists over several years, raising concerns of political interference.
Also read: Mobile Home Evictions in Florida Leave Seniors and Low-Income Residents With Nowhere to Go
Legal Battle Over Transparency
In response, the Environmental Defense Fund and Union of Concerned Scientists filed a federal lawsuit against the EPA and DOE. They argue that the Climate Working Group was created in secret, lacked transparency, and violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The suit claims the report was cited 22 times by the EPA in its bid to revoke the Endangerment Finding, the key legal basis for regulating greenhouse gases. Plaintiffs are asking a judge to block the government from relying on the report.
Also read: Trump Administration Cuts Threaten Birth Control Access for Millions
EPA and DOE Response
When asked about the lawsuit, the EPA said it does not comment on pending litigation and referred inquiries to the DOE, which did not respond. Wright, in the report’s preface, defended his decision, saying he selected the panel “for their rigor, honesty, and willingness to elevate the debate.”