Trump demands review of scientific manual used by federal judges

WASHINGTON (CN) — President Donald Trump has called for a review of a longstanding reference manual designed for federal judges handling complex scientific or technological issues, claiming the nonpartisan analytical handbook had been politicized.

Alluding to recent changes to the manual’s section on climate change, the president argued the government-backed handbook was “totally discredited” and claimed it had been used to improperly inform recent rulings on environmental issues.

Writing in a post on his social media platform Truth Social on Sunday evening, Trump said he had ordered “federal suspension and debarment officials” to review the National Academy of Sciences’ “Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence,” a decades-old publication produced in partnership with the Federal Judicial Center and aimed at assisting federal judges on issues of science and technology.

The president claimed the National Academy was “run by Radical Left” Democrats and that the nonprofit organization “published fraudulent, biased and misleading manuals on climate change.”

The latest edition of the judicial reference manual, published late last year, included a chapter on climate science and climate change. The section explained to judges the mechanical processes of climate change — such as the greenhouse effect, feedback loops and ecological tipping points — but also provided context on sources of climate research, including peer-reviewed studies and consensus reports.

But in February, the Federal Judicial Center, the government’s education and research agency serving federal courts, said it had removed the climate science chapter from its version of the reference manual. The move came just days after a group of Republican state attorneys general penned a letter to Congress arguing the handbook presented a “highly biased, agenda-driven view” of climate change targeting oil and gas companies.

The attorneys general, writing to top Republicans on the House and Senate judiciary committees, pointed to some of the report’s contributing authors who they claimed were climate change advocates. Some of them had been involved in litigation against U.S. oil and gas projects.

And the Republican officials also took issue with what they called “diversity, equity and inclusion principles” outlined in the judicial reference manual.

Trump on Sunday appeared to nod to recent changes to the courts’ scientific handbook as he railed on its climate change content.

“These bogus manuals were used by judges to decide massive ‘climate change’ cases, and have created huge losses across our country,” the president wrote. He did not specify any rulings which he believed had been informed by the reference manual’s content.

Trump claimed the handbook had been “totally discredited” and that federal judges had been misled with “political fraud and false science on climate.”

“Our taxpayers should not be funding climate fraud, and judges should never have relied on it,” said the president.

It wasn’t immediately clear from Trump’s social media post whether he’d formally ordered a review of the National Academy’s scientific reference manual, or whether he was seeking a new revision or punishment for its authors. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In a statement, a spokesperson for the House Judiciary Committee tied the reference manual to “extensive oversight” by the panel on what Republicans view as efforts by the climate lobby to “predispose federal judges to rule in favor of climate plaintiffs.”

“The NAS manuals are just another way that radical environmentalists are attempting to influence climate-related litigation in favor of climate special interests,” the spokesperson told Courthouse News.

And Clara Altman, deputy director of the Federal Judicial Center, told Courthouse News that the organization never distributed “hard copies” of its version of the reference manual containing the chapter on climate science. The Center’s edition, which was given out to federal judges, does not feature the climate section and is different than the version published by the National Academy of Sciences.

“Earlier this year, shortly after the fourth edition was released online, the Center responded to criticisms about the climate science chapter by omitting the chapter from its version of the RMSE,” said Altman.

The judiciary’s scientific handbook, published since 1994, covers a broad range of topics, including DNA identification, epidemiology, medical testimony, engineering and artificial intelligence. The manual is authored and reviewed by dozens of researchers, academics and federal judges — the most recent edition counts Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan among its contributors.

In a foreword to the 2025 version of the reference manual, Kagan wrote the product has helped achieve “better and fairer” legal decisions.

“Judges are typically generalists, and they often lack extensive background in the sciences,” the Supreme Court justice reasoned. “They can learn, as they do on many subjects, through the adversary process, applying their critical faculties to the claims of parties. But sometimes it also helps to have a dispassionate guide.”

Follow @BenjaminSWeiss