Attorneys general from several states demanded a March 2 reply to questions about a climate science chapter in the National Academies of Sciences Reference Manual. The NAS issued a two‑sentence response two days early, saying it used the same procedures it applies to every chapter, developed jointly with the Federal Judicial Center. The manual, including the climate chapter, stays online.

Montana’s attorney general, who sent the letter, noted the Academy’s heavy reliance on federal funding to produce expert reports. The letter warned that producing documents that upset Republicans could jeopardize that support, yet the AGs lack direct influence over funding. In response, authors of other chapters released an open letter condemning political interference.

Authors warned that if political actors dictate which scientific fields are acceptable for judicial education, every discipline tied to complex litigation risks becoming a target. They argued that repeated deletions would erode the manual’s quality, making it harder to attract top scientists and legal scholars and leaving judges ill‑prepared for science‑heavy cases.

Despite the controversy, the NAS confirmed that the climate chapter remains available on its website and that its review process remains unchanged. The attorneys general have no further recourse, and the Academy’s reliance on federal funding keeps it insulated from political pressure. The episode underscores the fragility of judicial education’s scientific foundation.