Trump Targets Academy That Got $205M in Federal Funds for Climate Attribution Report

For climate researchers and policy advocates, the scrutiny of NASEM’s $205 million in federal contracts is a direct assault on the most rigorous form of climate accountability: attribution science. By connecting emissions from named energy companies to specific storms and droughts, this research forms the backbone of climate liability lawsuits and federal adaptation planning. The Trump administration's intervention could not only freeze critical funding streams but also dismantle a legal and scientific architecture that holds major polluters financially responsible for mounting climate damages.

A coordinated political attack on the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) has erupted after the nonprofit published a report linking specific energy companies to local climate change events through attribution science. President Donald Trump and multiple members of Congress have called for investigations into the academy, which received more than $205 million in federal contracts in 2024. Trump labeled the research 'Climate Fraud' and ordered federal officials to review the academy's conduct, raising alarms among scientists and policy experts about political interference in publicly funded climate research.

“

President Donald Trump and multiple members of Congress have called for investigations into the academy, which received more than $205 million in federal contracts in 2024.

The report, 'Attribution of Extreme Weather and Climate Events and their Impacts,' employs advanced climate model simulations to isolate the human-caused signal from natural variability. By comparing ensembles with and without greenhouse gas emissions from industrial sources, the research directly ties emissions from particular energy companies to increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, including El Niño patterns and hurricane activity. This methodology, known as event attribution, has been widely published in peer-reviewed journals and is used by government agencies to inform infrastructure planning, disaster response, and legal proceedings. The academy's work is often cited as a reference manual by federal bodies, making it a critical node in the translation of climate science into policy and litigation.

The scrutiny is not without irony. NASEM does not receive direct congressional appropriations but operates largely through competitively awarded federal contracts and grants—a funding model insulated from line-item political review. The $205 million figure, though substantial, represents the total value of contracts from executive agencies, meaning the academy earns its funding by delivering research deliverables. Yet Trump's statement that 'taxpayers should not be funding Climate Fraud' reframes the arrangement as a misuse of public money. The implication is that any research finding human responsibility for climate change is inherently fraudulent, a position that would undermine the entire federal scientific enterprise.

For the climate science community, this episode is a flashback to earlier administrations that restricted federal climate communications and defunded certain research programs. However, the direct targeting of an institution as august as NASEM—an independent advisor to the nation since 1863—represents an escalation. The academy's reports are often produced at the request of Congress or agencies, meaning this work was likely mandated by the very government now questioning it. The attack also fits a broader pattern of using oversight powers to intimidate researchers whose findings challenge fossil fuel interests. Legal experts note that attribution science has been cited in climate liability lawsuits against energy companies; undermining the credibility of that science could have direct implications for such cases.

The immediate impact could be a chilling effect on federal climate research funding. If agencies fear that grants for attribution studies will draw political fire, they may redirect resources toward less contentious areas. This would slow progress in understanding the precise contributions of individual sectors and emitters to climate damages, which is essential for cost-benefit analyses of mitigation policies and for holding polluters accountable. Moreover, the investigation itself could become a tool for harassing scientists, demanding internal communications and model code in an effort to find methodological flaws. Such tactics have previously been used against climate researchers, leading to costly legal battles and personal distress.