Trump Admin Sued Over Secret Climate Report

The Trump Administration's Controversial Climate Report

The Trump administration has taken several steps to undermine climate science, including reducing funding for climate research, dismissing federal scientists involved in the National Climate Assessment, and removing past editions of the report from government websites. Now, critics argue that the administration is going a step further by attempting to rewrite the science itself, as highlighted in a recent lawsuit filed by environmental groups.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently working to revoke the Endangerment Finding, a 2009 scientific determination that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and can be regulated under the Clean Air Act. In support of this effort, the Department of Energy (DOE) published a new review of the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on U.S. climate. This report aims to provide a foundation for the EPA’s actions, but it has drawn significant criticism from environmental groups and independent scientists.

A Secret Report with Controversial Claims

The report, titled "A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate," was commissioned in March by Energy Secretary Chris Wright, who assembled a group of five independent climate scientists known as the 2025 Climate Working Group. However, the process was conducted in secret, with no public announcement about the initiative. The five scientists delivered their final draft by May 28, and in the report’s preface, they admitted that the short timeline and technical nature of the material prevented them from comprehensively reviewing all topics.

The report argues that carbon-driven warming may be less economically damaging than commonly believed and claims that aggressive U.S. climate policies would have little measurable impact on the global climate. It also attributes some warming to natural climate cycles or changes in the sun, rather than fossil fuel combustion, and asserts that sea level rise has not been accelerating, contrary to widely accepted scientific evidence. Additionally, the report highlights potential benefits of rising carbon dioxide levels for plant growth.

Criticisms and Concerns from the Scientific Community

Environmental groups and independent scientists have criticized the report for being misleading and incomplete. Rachel Cleetus, senior policy director of climate and energy programs at the Union of Concerned Scientists, described the report as “full of inaccuracies” and claimed it was designed to help the EPA avoid its legal responsibility to address the health harms of heat-trapping emissions and climate change.

Phil Duffy, chief scientist at Spark Climate Solutions, stated that the report presents an incomplete and misleading picture of how climate change is affecting the United States. He and other scientists say the DOE report cherry-picks evidence, misrepresents peer-reviewed research, and ignores the overwhelming consensus that human activity is driving dangerous warming. Multiple climate-based groups and researchers have published fact-checks on the report, with one listing more than 100 false or misleading claims made by the authors.

Ben Santer, a climate researcher and board member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, called the report “in service of a political goal, not credible science.” He pointed out that his own published work was misrepresented in the report and accused the authors of “fundamentally twisting” the work of many researchers to reach conclusions that will be used for political purposes.

The Panel's Controversial Composition

Critics in the scientific community have noted that the panel’s five authors are known for their contrarian views on climate science, which often conflict with the scientific consensus on the causes of climate change. Vickie Patton, general counsel at the Environmental Defense Fund, said that the individuals handpicked by the Trump administration’s energy secretary represent a small group that disagrees with the vast body of scientific evidence.

Some of these scientists have connections to the fossil fuel industry, raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest. Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a former oil and gas executive, has been vocal about his views on climate change, aligning closely with the report’s findings. In an op-ed earlier this year, he referred to climate change as “a by-product of progress” and argued that expanding access to affordable, reliable energy should remain the priority.

Legal Action and Ongoing Concerns

Wright has been transparent about his views on U.S. climate research, telling CNN’s Kaitlan Collins that the administration is reviewing past federal climate reports, including the National Climate Assessment, and may provide “updates” later this year. This has led many in the scientific community to fear that the administration is aiming to edit or censor critical research.

Duffy emphasized that the National Climate Assessments typically take years to write and are authored by hundreds of scientists. He argued that Wright did not oversee the previous reports and therefore has no authority to review or revise them. “He can't rewrite the National Climate Assessment any more than I can rewrite 'The Great Gatsby,'” Duffy said.

In response to these concerns, the Environmental Defense Fund and Union of Concerned Scientists filed a lawsuit in federal court against the EPA and the Department of Energy. The suit alleges that the Climate Working Group was created in secret, its work withheld from the public, and then its report was used extensively by the EPA to justify repealing the Endangerment Finding. The organizations are asking a judge to block the government’s use of the report to comply with transparency laws.

When asked about the lawsuit, the EPA responded in an email saying, “As a matter of longstanding practice, EPA does not comment on current or pending litigation,” and referred CBS News to the Department of Energy. The Department of Energy did not respond to any of our requests for comment.