German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, U.S. President Donald Trump, and French President Emmanuel Macron. DeSmog collage. Credit: Faces of the World / Flickr (Macron), Steffen Prößdorf (Merz), Gage Skidmore / Flickr (Trump)
European leaders are bending to the demands of U.S. climate science deniers.
“The CSDDD is the greatest threat to America’s sovereignty since the fall of the Soviet Union,” the Heartland Institute, a pro-Trump U.S. think tank, tweeted on 31 March.
The Heartland Institute is one of the world’s leading climate science denial groups. It has helped to draft Donald Trump’s anti-climate policies, which have seen the president pledge to “drill baby drill” for more fossil fuels and once again pull the U.S. out of the flagship 2015 Paris Agreement.
Over recent months – along with a host of other Trump allies – the Heartland Institute has set its sights on a new target: the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD).
This vague acronym belies the potentially transformative impact of the new law. In its original form, the CSDDD sought to require large companies – and those in “high risk” sectors – trading in the EU to address human rights and environmental issues in their own operations and in their supply chains. High turnover companies would also have been forced to adopt a plan to align with the Paris Agreement, including setting emissions reduction targets.
The Heartland Institute and its anti-climate, anti-regulation peers are vocal opponents of the law – and launched an aggressive campaign to water it down, or even to see it scrapped entirely.
These groups, which are all part of the ‘Make America Great Again’ (MAGA) ecosystem, view the CSDDD as symbolic of the way in which “woke” governments are attempting to force citizens and global corporations to conform to a pro-diversity, pro-environment agenda.
Following Trump’s election in November, these MAGA groups wasted no time in formulating their plans to oppose this perceived agenda.
They focused in particular on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which attempt to create workplaces free from bias – and environmental, social and governance (ESG) schemes, which try to ensure that organisations are guided by responsible and sustainable practices, not just profit.
In December, barely a month after Trump’s victory, the Heritage Foundation – the group that wrote the key ‘Project 2025’ blueprint for the president’s second term – published a report entitled: “ESG, DEI, and What to Do About Them”.
In the report, the Heritage Foundation described ESG and DEI as “pernicious”, and called the CSDDD “a serious problem”.
Two months later, the State Financial Officers Foundation – an influential network of Republican finance officials – wrote an open letter calling on the new administration to “investigate” the CSDDD, claiming that the EU’s directives are based on “unscientific assumptions about the nature of climate change impacts” and “will force companies to incriminate themselves”.
This quickly filtered through to Trump’s Cabinet. On 12 February, Howard Lutnick, the president’s pick for commerce secretary, told a Senate committee that the CSDDD threatened to place “significant burdens” on U.S. companies, and that the Trump administration was exploring the use of “commercial tools” to mount a counter-attack against the EU’s environmental regulations.
Soon this rhetoric made its way to the White House. In March, as part of the worldwide tariffs implemented by the Trump administration, the president called the EU “one of the most hostile and abusive taxing and tariffing authorities in the world”.
But the EU hasn’t stood firm in the face of Trump’s war of words.
The EU has already announced that it will be scaling back the CSDDD and delaying its implementation. The number of companies within scope has been reduced by 80 percent. The firms in question will only be required to file due diligence reports every five years, and won’t be required to investigate the ESG operations of their indirect business partners. The implementation of the law has also been postponed until 2028.
But Trump’s MAGA hardliners are still not satisfied. In April, the Heartland Institute released an open letter signed by 31 other groups, calling for Congress and the Trump administration to “take immediate steps to counter the CSDDD’s implementation”, including “if necessary, imposing retaliatory trade policies that punish EU nations for eroding America’s sovereignty, freedoms, and prosperity.”
This backlash is now influencing European leaders. In late May, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz called for the CSDDD to be scrapped entirely. They claim it must be abandoned in order to defend the “competitiveness” of European corporations, with Macron stating that Europe must “synchronise with the U.S. and the rest of the world.”
This judgement signifies the appeasement of anti-climate pressure groups that are ideologically opposed to clean energy and climate science.
The Heartland Institute has denied that humans are driving climate change, which it has called a “delusion”, while the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 document urged Trump to “dismantle the administrative state”, reverse policies on climate action, slash restrictions on fossil fuel extraction, scrap state investment in renewable energy, and gut the Environmental Protection Agency.
If the EU waters down its climate policies in response to Trump’s pressure, it will have helped to send Project 2025 global.
The ‘Climate Cartel’
It’s unclear whether these MAGA groups – and the Trump administration – will ease up on the EU if the CSDDD is ditched entirely. They may simply use it as evidence that European lawmakers will buckle under enough pressure.
Indeed, MAGA’s opposition to the CSDDD is part of a multi-pronged campaign that seeks to dismantle global climate initiatives pioneered by both governments and corporations.
Much of the original groundwork for this campaign was undertaken by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee and its chair Jim Jordan, a leading Trump supporter.
Last year, Jordan’s committee produced reports – and demanded evidence from major corporations – on a supposed “climate cartel” of “left-wing activists and major financial institutions”.
The committee alleged that some of the world’s biggest asset managers – that have questionable climate commitments – are conspiring to force American companies to decarbonise against their wishes.
As part of its “investigation”, the committee demanded information from more than 130 U.S.-based companies, retirement and pension programmes, as well as 60 U.S.-based asset managers.
In November, 11 Republican-led states sued BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street – three of the world’s biggest asset managers – over their ESG policies. In West Virginia and Oklahoma, nearly two dozen banks have been barred from public contracts for trying to divest from fossil fuels.
These actions, along with the anti-climate rhetoric of Donald Trump, have had a chilling effect. In February last year, BlackRock, State Street, and JP Morgan Asset Management withdrew from Climate Action 100+, an investor-led initiative that works to ensure the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters take action on climate change.
Fast forward a year, and a growing list of major U.S. corporations are either cancelling or delaying their sustainability reports – designed to show how they are meeting their climate commitments.
And a new story from the investigative outlet CORRECTIV today reports that German insurance giants and investment firms are withdrawing from climate agreements, while companies are quietly shelving their sustainability policies, amid the anti-ESG backlash orchestrated by Trump and his acolytes.
As one sustainability expert at a financial firm told CORRECTIV: “We have to be careful not to harm the cause by sticking our necks out and becoming a target in the U.S.”
This article was produced with support from the European Media and Information Fund, managed by the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. The sole responsibility for any content supported by the European Media and Information Fund lies with the author(s) and it may not necessarily reflect the positions of the EMIF and the Fund Partners, the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation and the European University Institute.
Reform is also giving a platform to a number of groups belonging to the Tufton Street network – an alliance of anti-government campaign outfits that lobby for more fossil fuel extraction and keep their donors a secret.
For the second year in a row, DeSmog has been banned from attending the event, which will be held in Birmingham.
The conference will also feature Together, a prominent anti-vaccine conspiracy theory group that has launched a campaign against the UK’s 2050 net zero emissions target.
“By giving a platform to climate deniers like Net Zero Watch and the Heartland Institute, Reform is showing open contempt for the British public already living with the realities of climate breakdown,” said Tessa Khan, executive director of the research and campaign group Uplift.
“Homes are being flooded again and again, farmers are losing billions to drought, and Scotland’s firefighters are battling wildfires. This is not theory – it’s people’s lives and livelihoods at stake,” Khan said.
“Reform’s deluded energy policy wilfully ignores the fact that the UK has already burnt most of its gas. Official projections show, even with new drilling, the UK will be 94 percent reliant on expensive, dirty imports by 2050. All this while Reform seeks to block the UK from profiting from some of the world’s best resources for offshore wind.
“Our dangerous dependence on fossil fuels is exactly why energy bills are so high and why millions of families across the UK have been driven into fuel poverty. Reform knows this. And it simply does not care.”
Most senior Reform politicians, including Farage, deny basic climate science. At the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship conference in February, the Reform leader said it was “absolutely nuts” for CO2 to be considered a pollutant. In the same month, Farage’s deputy Richard Ticetold Sky News: “There’s no evidence that man-made CO2 is going to change the climate. Given that it’s gone on for millions of years, it will go on for millions of years.”
Last month, Reform’s Great Lincolnshire Mayor Andrea Jenkynssaid in an interview with Times Radio: “Do I believe that climate change exists? No.”
They have expressed these views despite representing areas exposed to the worst effects of extreme heat.
Reform received 92 percent of its donations between the 2019 and 2024 UK elections from polluting sources and climate science deniers, while its treasurer Nick Candy has claimed the party is actively raising money from oil executives.
In Farage’s constituency of Clacton, 68 percent of the public is worried about rising temperatures, according to a YouGov poll published last August – slightly above the national average of 66 percent.
A recent report by the New Economics Foundation found that Reform’s climate policies would cost more than 60,000 jobs and wipe £92 billion off the UK economy. The science of climate change is also unequivocal: scientists at the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have stressed that “it is a statement of fact, we cannot be any more certain; it is unequivocal and indisputable that humans are warming the planet”.
DeSmog previously revealed that Reform is offering access to Farage during the conference in exchange for hefty donations. A sum of £250,000 buys 10 seats at a champagne breakfast with the Reform leader during the two-day event, as well as “chauffeur-driven travel”, a personal assistant, and the sponsor’s logo on the main conference stage and battle bus.
Reform didn’t respond to DeSmog’s request for comment.
Below is a summary of the key anti-climate groups to be given a platform at Reform’s conference.
Heartland Institute
The Heartland Institute is a U.S. climate science denial group with close ties to the Trump administration.
It has denied that humans are driving climate change, which it has called a “delusion”. The group claims it is “the world’s most prominent think tank supporting scepticism about man-made climate change”.
Heartland received at least $676,000 between 1998 and 2007 from U.S. oil giant ExxonMobil, and has received donations from foundations linked to the owners of Koch Industries – a fossil fuel giant and a leading sponsor of climate science denial.
The Heartland Institute previously told DeSmog that it ”stands resolute in its mission to advance sound science, economic prosperity, and individual liberty”. It added that “our support comes from a diverse array of individuals and organisations who share our vision for a freer, more prosperous world.”
Heartland was one of the groups involved in drafting Project 2025, the radical blueprint for Trump’s second term, which proposed reversing climate policies, slashing restrictions on fossil fuel extraction, scrapping state investment in renewable energy, and gutting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Earlier this month, President Trump hired Roy Spencer, a policy advisor at the Heartland Institute and a former fellow at the Heritage Foundation – the key group behind Project 2025 – as an advisor to the Department of Energy.
Heartland’s UK-EU director Lois Perry has claimed that the institute boasts “very strong affiliations” with “certain big individuals” in Trump’s team.
Nigel Farage attended a fundraising dinner for the institute in September 2024 during which he called for more fossil fuel extraction and the victory of Trump in November’s presidential election, saying: “Let’s get Trump back; let’s drill baby drill”.
He also advocated what he called “a bit of reverse colonialism”.
“Maybe it’s time that Heartland came and set up in Britain and Europe and brought some of the wisdom that you’ve brought to the American debate,” he said – adding: “I’d love to see Heartland on the other side of the pond.”
Farage soon got his wish. In December, Heartland announced it was setting up a UK-EU branch. The Reform leader was the “special guest of honour” at the group’s launch event in London, which also featured disgraced former Conservative prime minister Liz Truss.
Cementing his Heartland links, Farage headlined an invite-only event in June this year entitled “Net Zero: The New Brexit?” held at 55 Tufton Street.
As revealed by DeSmog, Heartland has been working closely with far-right politicians in Europe to undermine the bloc’s green reforms.
Perry, who is speaking at Reform’s conference, has previously said she does not believe climate change is caused by humans. She has said it’s her “personal belief” that climate change “is happening” but “is not man made”.
Like Farage, Perry is a former leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP). She used to run the anti-net zero pressure group CAR26, which has claimed that carbon dioxide is “essential to all life” and that its “welcome growth has greened our planet saving countless human and other lives”.
She recently claimed on a Heartland Institute podcast that she “knows for a fact” Farage credits Heartland with helping to shape Reform’s climate policies.
Heartland Institute president James Taylor told DeSmog: “Climate realism and energy realism are gaining traction throughout the world. The Heartland Institute appreciates that the Reform Party is on board and recognises Heartland as the global leader courageously providing truthful information on these topics. We also appreciate the encouragement and support provided by many policymakers among the UK Conservative Party. A rising tide lifts all boats and we are excited to be prominently leading the charge in the UK and throughout Europe.”
Institute of Economic Affairs
The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) is a radical anti-government campaign group that is part of the Tufton Street network.
The IEA, which has close ties to Liz Truss, advocates for increased fossil fuel production and against state-led climate action.
The IEA is a prominent supporter of the continued and extended use of fossil fuels. The group has advocated for the ban to be lifted on fracking for shale gas, calling it the “moral and economic choice”. The IEA has also said that the ban on new North Sea oil and gas licences is “madness”, has criticised the windfall tax imposed by the UK on fossil fuel firms, and said that the previous government’s commitment to “max out” the UK’s oil and gas reserves was a “welcome step”.
In 2018, Greenpeace’s investigative journalism unit Unearthed revealed that the IEA had received funding from oil major BP every year since 1967. In response to the story, an IEA spokeswoman said: “It is surely uncontroversial that the IEA’s principles coincide with the interests of our donors.”
The IEA also received a £21,000 grant from U.S. oil major ExxonMobil in 2005. The IEA is a member of Atlas Network, a Washington-based umbrella organisation that suppors over 450 “free market” groups around the world. Both the IEA and Atlas were founded by Antony Fisher. Fisher’s daughter, Linda Whetstone, was chair of the Atlas Network as well as a director of the IEA until her death in December 2021.
The IEA does not publicly declare its donors, and it’s not known if the pressure group has received funding from BP or ExxonMobil in more recent years.
The group is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission. The IEA was approached for comment.
TaxPayers’ Alliance
The TaxPayers’ Alliance (TPA), based in 55 Tufton Street, also campaigns in favour of fossil fuel extraction and against climate policies.
The group, which claims to be a grassroots movement while being supported by anonymous private donors, has supported ending the windfall tax on oil companies, scrapping the UK’s 2050 net zero target, and restarting fracking.
The TPA was approached for comment.
Net Zero Watch
Reform’s conference will also feature Net Zero Watch – one of the UK’s most notorious anti-climate campaign groups – on a panel entitled “Drill baby drill: abandoning net zero and restoring energy abundance”.
Net Zero Watch has urged the government to “recommit to fossil fuels”, including “a new fleet of coal fired power stations”, and has called for renewable energy from wind and solar to be “wound down completely”. From May 2023 to 2025, Reform’s Andrea Jenkyns sat on the Net Zero Watch board.
In a report published last March, the GWPF claimed it was “naive and entirely unrealistic” to believe that CO2 is causing climate change, that record global temperatures are “normal”, and that “there is no observational evidence for any global climate crisis”.
The group has previously expressed the view that carbon dioxide has been “mercilessly demonised”, when in fact it is a “benefit to the planet” and should be “two or three times” higher than its current level.
Net Zero Watch campaign director will be speaking alongside Kathryn Porter, a fossil fuel industry consultant who has written several reports for the GWPF and Net Zero Watch.
Net Zero Watch and the GWPF were approached for comment.
Prosperity Institute
The Prosperity Institute – formerly known as the Legatum Institute – is hosting several events at Reform conference.
A pro-Brexit think tank, the Prosperity Institute is run by the Dubai-based investment firm Legatum Group, which co-owns the anti-climate broadcaster GB News alongside hedge fund mogul Paul Marshall. GB News employs Farage to the tune of more than £300,000 a year.
In May, after Reform’s local election gains, Prosperity published an article entitled “Farage has the power to defund Net Zero” which claimed that “energy bills have skyrocketed, industries have fled and living standards have fallen” due to the UK’s climate policies.
According to the Spectator Australia, at a Prosperity Institute event in July, Farage said he would need the think tank to bring “fresh young talent into current affairs” and provide “policy solutions we can give to the electorate next time round”.
He said “the great revolution that took place from 1979” – a reference to the election of Margaret Thatcher – was based on the “hard work and good thinking” of neo-liberal economists like Keith Joseph and Milton Friedman.
“That in many ways is your role today”, he told the Prosperity Institute audience – urging the group to produce “the ammunition” to “those of us on the front lines”.
As revealed by DeSmog, the Prosperity Institute previously donated £50,000 to the New Conservatives – a faction of the Conservative Party.
Centre for a Better Britain
The conference will also feature the Centre for a Better Britain – a new Reform-aligned think tank set to launch this month.
The group is funded by Mark Thompson, an investor with interests in metals, fossil fuels, and renewable energy, and his business associate David Lilley, a senior metals trader and former Conservative donor who has given over £270,000 to Reform.
The Centre for a Better Britain, which is attempting to raise £25 million – including from Trump donors – intends to “support Reform with policy development, briefing and rebuttal,” according to plans seen by the Financial Times.
The think tank is chaired by James Orr, a Cambridge academic who has been described as the “philosopher king” of U.S. Vice President JD Vance.
Orr has expressed radical anti-climate positions, claiming in an interview with the European Conservative last month that the UK’s energy policies are “crazy” and that the pursuit of net zero is “fiscal suicide”.
At an event in Hungary last month hosted by the oil-funded think tank Mathias Corvinus Collegium (MCC), Orr also accused the UK of adopting a “naive and dangerous” approach to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and instead praised Hungary’s approach, which has seen the country systematically block and delay EU military aid packages, and sanctions on Russian oligarchs.
In the European Conservative interview, Orr suggested the war was a “regional Slavic conflict”.
“It is a conflict happening in the world that I don’t care very much about,” he added.
Farage, who used to appear regularly on state broadcaster Russia Today, has previously said that Putin is the world leader that he most admires, though he has also called him a “bad man”.
Together and Farmers to Action
Established in 2021 to oppose mandatory Covid-19 protection measures, such as lockdowns and vaccines, Together has since launched a “no to net zero” campaign that calls for the UK to scrap climate policies.
In January last year, the group said it was “incredible” that the then prime minister Rishi Sunak should “mindlessly assert ‘Covid vaccines are safe’” in a post on X. It has also backed a report which called for the government to pause its vaccination programme over a number of widely debunked conspiracy theories about its safety, including that the vaccine alters human DNA.
Together has recently partnered with Farmers To Action – a protest group also set to feature at Reform’s conference. The group has used recent anti-inheritance tax campaigns to spread anti-climate views.
The leader of Farmers to Action, Justin Rogers, has claimed that “climate change is one of the biggest scams that has ever been told”, propagated by “our governments and their puppet masters.” He has also claimed that oil and gas are renewable, and that carbon dioxide cannot be dangerous because it “feeds plants”.
At an event co-hosted by Together and Farmers to Action in February, Farage endorsed a conspiracy theory popular among the far-right.
Speaking in front of around 50 tractors at Belmont Farm in North London, Farage insinuated that the Labour government had a “sinister agenda” to acquire “lots of land because they’re planning for another five million people to come into the country”.
This claim is borne from the “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory, which holds that progressive immigration policies are a mechanism to replace white people in the West, and has been cited by Donald Trump in recent months.
Farmers to Action and Together were approached for comment.
Nigel Farage urges you to ignore facts and reality and be a climate science denier like him. He says that Reform UK has received millions and millions from the fossil fuel industry to promote climate denial and destroy the planet.Nigel Farage explains the politics of Reform UK: Racism, Fake anti-establishmentism, Deregulation, Corporatism, Climate Change Denial, Mysogyny and Transphobia.Nigel Farage reminds you that he’s the man that brought you Brexit and asks what could possibly go wrong.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has described her plan to “maximise extraction” of the UK’s oil and gas from the North Sea as a “common sense” energy policy.
Politicians are using language like this increasingly often – calling themselves “pragmatic” on climate change and invoking “common sense”. It sounds reasonable, reassuring, and grownup – the opposite of “hysterical” campaigners or “unrealistic” targets.
But new research my colleagues and I conducted, calling on a decade of interviews with UK MPs, shows that political “pragmatism” is fast becoming a dangerous form of climate delay. By framing urgent action as “extreme” and steady-as-she-goes policies as “pragmatic”, leaders across the political spectrum are protecting the fossil-fuel status quo at the very moment scientists warn we need rapid, transformative change.
Badenoch’s latest intervention is a perfect example. She said “common sense” dictates that every drop of oil must be extracted from the North Sea, and that net zero by 2050 was a policy pushed by “bullies”. This came just a day after the UK Met Office declared summer 2025 as the hottest on record.
We found that members of parliament deploy the same language of pragmatism to defend fossil fuel companies and to insist to their constituents that nothing needs to change too fast. The paradox, of course, is that more urgent social and economic change is precisely what the world’s climate scientists say is necessary to avert climate breakdown.
In our recent interviews with politicians, MPs from across the political spectrum tended towards gradual change in order to maintain political and public support. One said:
First and foremost be pragmatic. Accept incremental change, because incremental change often accelerates, but you take people with you. If you didn’t take people with you, you’ll start getting resistance.
Another MP contrasted a pragmatic approach with the calls from some campaign groups for more rapid action:
There are campaigns that say we’ve got to be net zero by 2025, or 2030. [laughing incredulously] … do you realise what the consequences of that will be … you’d have a revolution in Britain if you tried to do that, in terms of destroying people’s quality of life.
Interestingly, despite rejecting more ambitious targets, later in the interview the same MP acknowledged that faster change was needed:
We need to do more, we could do more, we are, you know, I’m sure the government will do more. I’m certainly pushing it to do more. But fundamentally we’ve halved our emissions since 1990.
Here we see the nuance, and the danger, of the language of pragmatism. It allows politicians to hold two positions at once. They can acknowledge the need for rapid change, while promoting a “pragmatic” position against it.
The calls for pragmatism appeared to stem from MPs’ desire to present a reasoned and rational case for climate action that does not impinge on constituents’ lives. They also used pragmatism to distance themselves from arguments they portrayed as “extreme” or “shrill”.
The flawed assumption underlying these calls to pragmatism is that the public will not support ambitious, transformative climate policies. We concluded that whereas a few years ago MPs promoted climate policies “by stealth”, meaning they did it on the quiet, now they turn to ideas of pragmatism in an attempt to maintain a fragile political consensus in favour of net zero – a consensus that is already fracturing.
Top-down pragmatism
This turn to pragmatism can now be seen at the very top of British politics, threatening the UK’s steady ratcheting up of climate ambition to date.
Former Labour prime minister Tony Blair recently wrote in the Blair Institute’s report on climate change: “People know that the current state of debate over climate change is riven with irrationality.”
Blair then asserted: “Any strategy based on either ‘phasing out’ fossil fuels in the short term or limiting consumption is a strategy doomed to fail.” This is despite the widespread consensus among scientists that both phasing out fossil fuels and reducing consumption of at least some products are essential.
The report goes on to say: “A realistic voice in the climate debate is required, neither ideological nor alarmist but pragmatic.” This language is intended to sound rational, reasonable and even scientific. The problem is that it can be used to justify actions that appear to ignore what the science is telling us.
Former Conservative prime minister Rishi Sunak warned against treating climate change as an “ideology” . Notably, Sunak referred to “pragmatic, proportionate, and realistic” climate action shortly after his government announced hundreds of new licences for oil and gas fields in the North Sea.
His message coincided with ongoing road-building programmes, plans for airport expansion, and insufficient action to insulate the UK’s housing stock, all of which could jeopardise the UK’s climate targets. Again we see the language of pragmatism working against the rapid societal changes that are necessary.
The pragmatic road ahead
In general, the MPs we spoke to were not using pragmatism in bad faith. Rather it was a way of navigating the complexities of climate politics where the huge changes demanded by climate mitigation are deemed too challenging to sell to constituents. But this political strategy is a very risky one and underestimates the public’s appetite for “strong and clear” climate leadership from government.
The current government is already struggling to reconcile net zero commitments with its economic growth agenda, which includes a new runway at Heathrow airport. Not only is prime minister Keir Starmer facing divisions within the ruling Labour party over net zero ambitions, he is also dealing with increasingly prominent net zero scepticism from the leaders of the Conservative and Reform parties.
The political language of “pragmatism” therefore risks spreading from Badenoch to Starmer, becoming a discourse of delay that promotes non-transformative solutions.
Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.
Memorials for some of the more than 100 people killed in July 2025’s catastrophic flash flooding in central Texas, which was intensified by climate change. Credit: source/credit info: World Central Kitchen (CC BY 4.0)
A 435-page review found the authors used standard climate denier tropes to produce a report riddled with errors.
A group of more than 85 climate experts today released a scathing review of the Trump administration’s “Climate Working Group” report on climate change science, condemning it as “biased, full of errors, and not fit to inform policymaking.”
The reviewers include MacArthur “Genius” Fellows, a half-dozen members of the National Academy of Sciences, Royal Society fellows, and fellows from other prominent scientific organizations including the American Meteorological Society, which issued its own separate statement criticizing the Climate Working Group report.
They found that the federal report “exhibits pervasive problems with misrepresentation and selective citation of the scientific literature, cherry-picking of data, and faulty or absent statistics” in order “to downplay the risks of record-breaking heat, intense rainfall, worsening wildfires, rising sea levels, and widespread health harms – all well-established by decades of peer-reviewed science.”
The Trump administration’s report was authored by five longtime climate deniers — Steve Koonin, John Christy, Ross McKitrick, Judith Curry, and Roy Spencer —as part of its effort to gut federal powers to regulate climate-heating pollution from cars, power plants, and other major sources. The Department of Energy (DOE) released it on July 29.
On the same day the Trump report was released, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the agency’s proposal to rescind the foundation of those regulations: its scientific “endangerment finding” affirming that carbon pollution threatens human health and welfare by creating dangerous planetary warming.
Texas A&M climate scientist Andrew Dessler organized the volunteer effort to review the report, which is being submitted to the Department of Energy during the public comment period that closes on September 2. The public comment period on the EPA’s proposal is open through September 22.
Announcing the release of the review this morning on his personal blog, Dessler termed the Trump report “a show trial for climate science.
“Like any good Soviet trial, the outcome of this exercise by the Dept. of Energy is already known: climate science will be judged too uncertain to justify the endangerment finding,” Dessler said. “Once you understand that, everything about the DOE report makes total sense. You understand why the five contrarian authors were selected: The only way to get this report was to pick these authors. If any other writing team had been chosen, the report would have been 180° different.”
The Trump report’s authors have previously defended their work, telling the journal Nature that they are “committed to a transparent and fact-based dialogue on climate science and know from long experience that scientific criticism and rebuttal are essential to that process.”
In response to a request for comment, Curry referred reporters to her blog, where she described the Dessler review as “comprehensive” and a “laudable effort,” noting that it “was prepared in 30 days (sort of weakens the argument that the DOE report was written too quickly, ha ha).”
The Energy Department’s public comment period on the report was set for 30 days, rather than a more typical 60 days. The agency has not announced an extension.
After “skimming” the review, Curry said, she “didn’t spot anything in this report that would lead to changing any of the conclusions in the DOE Report.”
The four other members of the Climate Working Group, as well as the Energy Department, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“A Wonderful Example of Junk Science”
The Trump report “is a travesty for U.S. scientific integrity,” said Ryan Katz-Rosene of the University of Ottawa, an expert on climate and sustainability policies and politics, in a statement. “It reads like a list of common climate skeptic tropes — long ago rebutted by the scientific community — being rehashed by a group of disgruntled scientists.”
The 435-page expert review found that the Trump climate report exhibited a pattern of questionable reasoning, as well as dozens of factual and structural flaws — such as relying on “verifiably flawed and unrepresentative [scientific] literature.”
It was also riddled with typos, scrambled citations, unsupported claims about climate science, and references to research or data that the reviewers could not find, along with at least one manufactured quote.
These sorts of errors have become associated with AI slop, though the reviewers didn’t speculate whether the report’s five authors — who the expert reviewers described in a statement as a “tiny team of hand-picked contrarians” — used AI to write their report.
“I always like to find a silver lining,” climate scientist Andy Miller, a 33-year EPA veteran, said in a statement. “In this case the silver lining is that this document is a wonderful example of junk science that can be used as an example for years to come.”
Koonin, Curry, and their co-authors used several climate disinformation tactics in their report. Here are just a few.
Omitting Evidence
The review found many instances where the Trump report left out vital details — sometimes entire fields of study — that would undercut the administration’s case for deregulation.
“The only mention of the oceans throughout the entire report is in the context of ocean acidification, coral reefs, and sea level rise,” the review noted. “The glaring omission of the myriad impacts of climate change on the ocean — marine heat waves, changing species distributions, changes in ocean circulation, increased harmful algal blooms, coastal erosion, and economic impacts on commercially valuable fisheries to name a few — is a significant problem with the report.”
The report also has a bad case of “selection bias,” by elevating minor issues or weak science over well-established and strong science, or issues vital to climate action.
In one instance, the Trump team heavily downplayed the scientific research at the heart of the Paris Agreement’s nitty-gritty methodologies for measuring carbon emissions, and put a more marginal approach at the center instead.
“For a report claiming to be a ‘Critical Review’ of greenhouse gas impacts to entirely ignore the primary scientific framework for international and national climate policy is an inexplicable and scientifically unjustifiable omission,” the review concluded.
In sections where Trump’s climate team claimed that there were no long-term extreme weather trends associated with climate change — such as more frequent and destructive floods and hurricanes — the review found that they left out key findings that contradicted their conclusion, cherry-picked studies, quoted research out of context, and used outdated materials instead of the best available science.
The five authors used similar tactics to slant sections on tornadoes and wildfires.
Zombie Arguments
The Trump administration report raises questions about climate change that have been asked and answered — repeatedly. Rehashing these long-settled scientific debates created an opportunity for the report’s authors to deny the fundamental cause of the climate crisis: burning fossil fuels.
“Those sorts of back-from-the-dead arguments [create] a ‘zombie argument’ that is inconsistent with the state of the best available science,” the expert review concluded.
One such resurrected claim pointed to record-breaking high temperatures in the 1930s to dismiss climate change as a factor in recent heat waves. However, many of these records have fallen since 2000. “[I]n our calculation, the most recent few years have had as many record-breaking high temperatures as the 1930s,” the review notes. “In fact, the year with the most record-breaking hot days is 2023.”
The federal report sometimes griped about the absence of their claims from recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change surveys of the best-available science, without acknowledging that climate scientists have moved on from those questions for good reasons.
“So much literature has been produced to refute the claims of the [Climate Working Group] report authors, and over so long a time period,” the review pointed out, “that these claims are no longer part of the active scientific debate.”
Echo Chambers
The Trump administration’s five authors relied heavily on citations to their own climate-related research and analyses, the review found.
Overall, 11 percent of the report’s citations were self-citations, according to the review — roughly two to four times more than the self-citations in the climate science overview released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2021.
In a couple of chapters, the self-citations numbered more than one out of every four.
This echo chamber of self-citations pushes out other, peer-reviewed and published science on the same topics, “of which there is plenty,” according to the expert review.
Word Games
The expert review found that conclusions reached by the Trump team sometimes relied on incorrect uses of scientific terms in ways that favored climate denial.
In one example, reviewers explained that the term ocean acidification “is not used in a way to indicate that the ocean is becoming an acid,” but “the more commonly used term for the phenomena of ocean carbonate chemistry changes because it provides a straightforward terminology to describing the declining pH of the ocean.”
Elsewhere, the Trump team uses the term “greening” in a misleading way that “implies ‘greening’ is an expansion of vegetation into areas that were previously non-vegetated,“ the review found. This is a key mistake because the report “thus incorrectly interprets the literature on ‘greening’ throughout this section.”
The Endangerment Finding, Endangered
Opponents of greenhouse gas cuts have worked for decades to block or overturn the federal government’s power to regulate them.
The legal basis for this authority is the EPA endangerment finding that — despite being credited to the Obama-Biden administration by Trump officials — dates back to George W. Bush’s second term as president.
In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in lawsuit brought by Massachusetts and several other states, that CO2, methane, and four other greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act. In the ruling the court also found that under the Clean Air Act, the EPA had a duty under to analyze whether they endanger public health or welfare and — if so — to regulate sources of carbon pollution.
In response to this decision, the EPA produced its endangerment finding. Rather than regulate carbon pollution, however, the Bush White House suppressed the document.
In 2009 the Obama White House released the finding, and began establishing rules under the Clean Air Act to cap and cut carbon pollution from motor vehicles as well as power plants and other industrial sources.
Since then, as DeSmog has previously reported, a powerful anti-climate coalition of politicians, oil companies, trade groups, and right-wing networks has been trying to overturn the endangerment finding, culminating in Project 2025 — the extreme-right blueprint for transforming the federal government.
Project 2025’s chapter on the EPA, which mentions “updating” the 2009 endangerment finding, was written in part by Aaron Szabo, now a high-level Trump appointee to the agency.
The director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, Russ Vought, was one of the main architects of Project 2025, and has publicly supported rescinding the endangerment finding.
Some members of the Trump climate working group were also part of his first administration. Steve Koonin, a physicist, advised the government on climate change during Trump’s first term, and atmospheric scientist John Christy was on the EPA’s Science Advisory Board.
Another Trump report co-author, climatologist Judith Curry, was a paid witness for the state of Montana during a 2023 trial on whether the state’s promotion of fossil fuels violated its constitution. The 16 young Montana residents who sued the state won that case.
UPDATE Sept. 2, 2025: This story has been updated to include a statement from Judith Curry, and to correct the end date of the public comment period for the EPA’s proposal to rescind the endangerment finding.
Donald Trump urges you to be a Climate Science denier like him. He says that he makes millions and millions for destroying the planet, Burn, Baby, Burn and Flood, Baby, Flood.Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.Orcas discuss Donald Trump and the killer apes’ concept of democracy. Front Orca warns that Trump is crashing his country’s economy and that everything he does he does for the fantastically wealthy.
Original article by Brad Reed republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
A tow truck driver tries to attach a cable to a car submerged in flood waters on the bank of the Guadalupe River during a search and recovery mission on July 13, 2025 in Ingram, Texas. (Photo by Jim Vondruska/Getty Images)
“Hurricane season has begun, yet FEMA continues to lack an appointed administrator with the mandated qualifications to fulfill this role,” the employees wrote in a letter to Congress.
More than 180 federal emergency relief workers have signed a letter warning that US President Donald Trump’s administration is severely harming their ability to respond to future disasters.
The letter, which was sent to members of Congress on Monday, painted a dire picture of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under Trump’s watch.
“Since January 2025, FEMA has been under the leadership of individuals lacking legal qualifications, Senate approval, and the demonstrated background required of a FEMA administrator,” the employees stated. “Decisions made by FEMA’s Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Administrator (SOPDA) David Richardson, former SOPDA Cameron Hamilton, and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem erode the capacity of FEMA… hinder the swift execution of our mission, and dismiss experienced staff whose institutional knowledge and relationships are vital to ensure effective emergency management.”
The employees then detailed several specific ways that the Trump administration has hamstrung the agency, which they said would be tantamount to “the effective dissolution of FEMA itself and the abandonment of the American people” if not corrected.
First, they faulted Noem for requiring personal review for all contracts, grants, and mission assignments costing more than $100,000, which they described as an improper impoundment of agency funds that “reduces FEMA’s authorities and capabilities to swiftly deliver our mission.”
They then took aim at Richardson, whom they lambasted as wholly unqualified for his position.
“Hurricane season has begun, yet FEMA continues to lack an appointed administrator with the mandated qualifications to fulfill this role,” they warned. “The dangers of unqualified leadership were a significant lesson learned from Hurricane Katrina.”
The FEMA workers noted that the Trump administration has flouted federal requirements demanding that FEMA administrators demonstrate “ability in and knowledge of emergency management.” According to The New York Times, Richardson told employees in June that he hadn’t been aware the US had a hurricane season.
“They’re breaking the law so they can hire mediocre people,” said US Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.). “And Americans will die as a result.”
The employees also slammed the administration for its “censorship of climate science, environmental protection, and efforts to ensure all communities have access to information, resources, and support.”
They also noted that the administration removed the Future Risk Index from FEMA’s website this past February, which they said would harm “the nation’s ability to properly prepare for and mitigate against the risks of tomorrow.”
Finally, the employees called attention to the massive workforce drain FEMA has experienced under Trump’s administration.
“FEMA’s current capacities have been significantly limited due to a loss of personnel through programs designed to incentivize our workforce to leave federal service, ongoing hiring freezes, and the cancellation of critical support contracts,” they wrote. “One-third of FEMA’s full-time staff have departed the agency this year, leading to the loss of irreplaceable institutional knowledge and long-built relationships.”
The employees also said that the damage done to FEMA was already visible this past summer during the agency’s response to deadly floods in central Texas that claimed the lives of more than 130 people.
“As that disaster unfolded, FEMA’s mission to provide critical support was obstructed by leadership who not only question the agency’s existence but place uninformed cost-cutting above serving the American people and the communities our oath compels us to serve,” they said.
A total of 181 FEMA employees signed the letter, although only 35 of them made their signatures a matter of public record.
Trump earlier this year said he’d like to see FEMA dismantled so that more responsibility for handling the aftermath of natural disasters would be pushed off to individual states. Meanwhile, the president has denied some states’ requests for disaster declarations, including Kentucky, Tennessee, and Oklahoma.
Original article by Brad Reed republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is a U.S. government agency under the Department of Homeland Security responsible for coordinating federal responses to disasters and emergencies.
Donald Trump urges you to be a Climate Science denier like him. He says that he makes millions and millions for destroying the planet, Burn, Baby, Burn and Flood, Baby, Flood.Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.Orcas discuss how Trump was re-elected and him being an insane, xenophobic Fascist.
