Trump Orders Review of Green Graft and False Research

Trump Administration Targets Alleged Fraudulent Climate Research and Wasteful Spending in Energy Sector

Signaling a strong stand against alleged widespread misuse of resources and perceived biased climate science, President Donald Trump has initiated a comprehensive evaluation and potential suspension of officials associated with allegedly fraudulent climate studies and guides. It is suggested that these have been used to encourage massive regulatory and litigation fees against American energy producers and taxpayers.

The Presidential directive, as noted in a post published on July 20, 2026, focuses on the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and associated processes. These processes are believed to have created alleged biased climate guides for federal judges. Critics assert that these materials have served as advocacy tools, causing lawsuits and regulations that have inflicted “massive losses” on the nation.

Controversy over Allegedly Biased Climate Chapter in Judicial Reference Manual

The uproar revolves around the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Fourth Edition, published in late 2025. This manual, a collaborative effort by the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), included a dedicated chapter on climate science for the first time.

Critics, such as Republican state attorneys general and media outlets including the Wall Street Journal, allege the climate chapter was biased. They contend it was authored by those linked with climate litigation groups, including the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. They argue it was intentionally crafted to sway judges in cases associated with fossil fuel companies, attribution of weather events to climate change, and regulatory challenges.

Amidst the backlash, the FJC removed the climate chapter from its version of the manual. However, NASEM continued to keep the climate chapter available on its website, which led to further criticism. Trump’s statement described these materials as “fraudulent, biased climate manuals” that are “now TOTALLY DISCREDITED,” asserting that federal judges deserve “FACTS, not political fraud and fake science.” He called for a full evaluation, suspension, and potential debarment of the officials involved, stating that taxpayers will no longer fund the “Climate Scam” and that judges should never rely on it again.

This aligns with the broader efforts of the Trump administration, which includes the May 2025 Executive Order on Restoring Gold Standard Science. This order emphasizes transparency, reproducibility, rigorous peer review, and acknowledgment of uncertainties in federally funded or used research.

Trump Administration’s Review of Spending on Wind, Solar, Battery Storage, and Carbon Capture

The administration’s investigation of alleged fraudulent research connects directly to the examination of the massive taxpayer-funded push for renewables and related technologies under preceding policies. These policies include the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA).

Key spending figures are: In the fiscal year 2025 alone, federal energy subsidies and tax expenditures amounted to nearly $64.1 billion. Renewables, electric vehicles, and energy efficiency grabbed about 90% (~$57.9–$58 billion) of this figure. In contrast, fossil fuels received only around $2.6 billion. This single-year renewable support exceeded the cumulative fossil fuel tax expenditures from 1994 through 2025.

Broad estimates project the IRA clean energy subsidies, including wind, solar, batteries, carbon capture, EVs, and more, far beyond initial projections. Independent analyses estimate the 10-year cost to be anywhere between $936 billion to almost $2 trillion, with long-term projections hitting several trillion dollars by 2050.

An analysis estimates that the U.S. has invested about $1.5 trillion in wind and solar since April 2020. This investment includes subsidies, tax credits, private investment triggered by policy, and related support. Despite such substantial investment, wind and solar only contributed to about 17% of U.S. electricity generation in 2025.

A number of specific programs, such as the IIJA and IRA, channeled billions into battery storage manufacturing and deployment, carbon capture and storage (CCS) hubs, direct air capture (DAC), and related demonstration projects. Multiple awards have since been terminated by the Department of Energy (DOE) (including over $3.7 billion in CCS/decarbonization projects and hundreds of millions in battery/manufacturing grants) following reviews that deemed them economically not viable or not meeting national energy requirements.

Other examples of questionable spending include efforts to manage or terminate parts of the $14–20 billion “green bank” grants and various clean energy demonstration awards. Some were canceled due to insufficient documentation, missed milestones, or political considerations related to project locations.

The Trump administration cites these instances as examples of hurried “Green New Scam” funding without adequate oversight. These funds often benefited projects that escalated system costs, relied on intermittent energy sources, or depended on foreign supply chains. Legislation like the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) has phased out or restricted many wind and solar tax credits (effective around mid-2026 for new projects), with the aim to end market-distorting subsidies for unreliable energy sources.

A Step Towards Review, Accountability, and Energy Dominance

The order by President Trump signifies a broader reset: prioritizing rigorous, unbiased science in policy and judicial decisions, and critically examining the wasteful spending that has supported intermittent renewables and experimental carbon technologies at the cost of taxpayers. By terminating or reviewing subsidies, ending non-viable projects, and challenging politicized research, the administration argues it will lower energy costs for Americans, improve grid reliability, reduce dependency on foreign-controlled supply chains, and restore integrity to federal decision-making.

Supporters view this as long-awaited accountability for policies that have committed or risked trillions for limited, reliable energy gains. Critics categorize the order as a setback, including environmental groups and some courts, which have challenged certain cancellations and policy shifts, leading to ongoing litigation.