A U.S. federal court delivered a significant ruling, finding that a secretive "Climate Working Group" convened by the Trump administration was not exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), a key transparency law. The decision is a victory for environmental groups who argued that the administration unlawfully formed a biased group of climate skeptics to produce a discredited report aimed at undermining the scientific basis for climate regulations. The lawsuit, brought by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), challenged the formation of the group by the Department of Energy (DOE) and the use of its report by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The report produced by the group is central to the administration's efforts to revoke the EPA's 2009 "Endangerment Finding", the scientific and legal determination that greenhouse gas pollution endangers public health and welfare, which serves as the foundation for regulating emissions from vehicles and power plants. The administration's sole legal defense was that the Climate Working Group was exempt from FACA's requirements for transparency, public participation, and balanced perspectives because it was merely assembled to "exchange facts or information." The court emphatically rejected this claim. In its order, the judge stated, "This Court rules that the Climate Working Group was not assembled to 'exchange facts or information' in a manner that would bring it into the claimed exception." The court found that the group's report clearly offered policy advice, noting, "The conclusion of the report itself shows that it is no mere 'review' of the literature. To suggest otherwise borders on sophistry." The ruling came on the same day that the National Academies of Science released a separate report affirming that the evidence of harm from climate pollution is "beyond scientific dispute" and has only grown stronger since 2009, directly contradicting the working group's conclusions.
The Climate Working Group's report has been widely denounced by the scientific community, with more than 85 scientists issuing a rebuttal, accusing it of using data inaccurately and misrepresenting their findings. While the court denied the environmental groups' request for a preliminary injunction, meaning the case will proceed on its merits, the ruling strikes down the administration's primary legal justification for the group's secrecy.The decision affirms that when the executive branch convenes external groups to provide policy recommendations, it must adhere to federal transparency laws. It sets an important precedent that prevents administrations from circumventing public accountability by forming secretive, hand-picked committees to generate politically motivated reports under the guise of a simple "literature review."
Source: Environmental Defense Fund