House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Brian Babin, along with Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Rich McCormick and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Scott Franklin, sent a letter on Apr. 17 to Dr. Marcia McNutt, President of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), seeking details about NASEM’s recent report on anthropogenic greenhouse gases and climate impacts.
The inquiry is significant because it addresses questions about transparency and independence in scientific advisory work that informs federal policy decisions. The letter focuses on how the Greenhouse Gases Committee was formed and funded, as well as concerns over its expedited timeline following a proposed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule change.
In their letter, the Chairmen said that NASEM’s credibility depends on objectivity: “Congress has long relied on NASEM precisely because it is expected to operate free from political influence, financial entanglements, or institutional bias.” They continued: “when those standards are compromised—or appear to be compromised—the value of NASEM’s advice to policymakers and the public is correspondingly diminished.”
The committee leaders pointed out that the Greenhouse Gases Committee was assembled shortly after the EPA proposed rescinding its 2009 Endangerment Finding. They noted that “the impetus for this report was a notice of proposed rulemaking issued in August 2025 by the [EPA],” with NASEM producing a “fast-track[ed]” report within weeks reaffirming the Endangerment Finding. The Chairmen questioned whether there was sufficient transparency or independence in this process due to its compressed schedule and possible reliance on private funding sources.
Broader concerns were also raised regarding NASEM’s exemption from requirements under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which allows it to avoid certain transparency and accountability measures applied to other federal advisory bodies. This issue has drawn attention as special interest groups have challenged other reports related to climate regulation based on FACA compliance issues.
The letter further cited recent problems involving undisclosed conflicts of interest in work affiliated with NASEM—including a retracted chapter in a federal judicial manual—as examples of ongoing concerns about conflict-of-interest policies.
Committee leaders requested information about communications between NASEM and federal agencies; details about funding sources; procedures for ensuring objectivity; processes for managing conflicts of interest; how committees are assembled; initiation procedures for studies; records related specifically to this committee’s work; broader data regarding funding practices; study methodologies; record retention practices—and asked for all relevant materials by May 1.
