Marsha Blackburn demands answers on federal judges’ climate training tied to China-linked group

EXCLUSIVE — Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) is demanding answers from the Federal Judicial Center, the federal judiciary’s research and education agency, over its relationship with a climate training program run by the Environmental Law Institute, an organization she says has also advanced Chinese interests.Blackburn’s letter, which was sent to the agency on Thursday evening, follows President Donald Trump’s Truth Social post on Sunday calling for a federal review of what he called “fraudulent, biased, and misleading” climate science manuals used by federal judges. Trump’s post revived a controversy over a climate chapter the Federal Judicial Center removed from its scientific evidence manual this year after objections from Republican state attorneys general.In the letter obtained exclusively by the Washington Examiner, Blackburn asked the center to disclose how many federal judges have participated in programming from ELI’s Climate Judiciary Project, whether the center knew of ELI’s alleged ties to China before working with it, and whether the center partners with other legal training organizations tied to foreign governments. “[W]hen judges receive continuing education and training, it should pertain to the impartial, fair administration of justice — not political, left-wing programming from a CCP-linked group,” Blackburn wrote to Judge Robin Rosenberg, Federal Judicial Center director. Blackburn requested a response by 5 p.m. on July 29.The Federal Judicial Center provides research, education, and training for federal judges and court staff. It also produces the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, a guide judges use when evaluating expert testimony in technically complex cases.The manual became a flashpoint earlier this year after the center included a chapter on climate science in its fourth edition, released in December as part of a long-planned update. Written by Columbia Law School’s Jessica Wentz and Radley Horton, the chapter said it was intended to help judges assess expert testimony and documentary evidence involving climate science.But the chapter quickly drew a coordinated challenge from Republican state attorneys general. In a Jan. 29 letter, 27 GOP attorneys general argued that the material took sides in disputes over climate attribution — the effort to connect particular weather events to human-caused emissions — and was biased against fossil fuel companies.The attorneys general argued the chapter was “rife with methodology issues” and appeared intended to persuade judges to accept views advanced by climate litigation advocates. The Federal Judicial Center subsequently removed the chapter in February, according to Reuters.The controversy has more recently drawn Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan into the fight. Kagan wrote the foreword to the fourth edition of the manual, noting that judges would increasingly confront litigation involving “climate science” and encouraging them to use the manual when evaluating scientific evidence.Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan testifies before a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government hearing on the “Review of the FY2027 Budget Request for the Supreme Court” on Capitol Hill, Tuesday, July 14, 2026, in Washington, D.C. (Graeme Jennings/Washington Examiner) A coalition of conservative legal organizations, including JCN, formerly known as the Judicial Crisis Network, has since called for a Senate Judiciary Committee investigation into whether Kagan should recuse herself from Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, Colorado, a pending case involving climate-related claims against energy companies. The groups argue that her foreword and the manual’s former climate chapter create an appearance that she endorsed legal theories underlying the plaintiffs’ claims.During a rare appearance before Congress last week, Kagan told Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) that she had not read the climate chapter. She said the federal judge who managed the project was working with members of Congress on how to ensure “a situation like this does not come up again.”Trump’s Truth Social post escalated the dispute further. He accused the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which jointly produced the manual with the Federal Judicial Center, of producing climate materials that have been used by judges to decide major climate change cases.Lebanese President Joseph Aoun listens as he meets with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office at the White House, Tuesday, July 21, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein) “Our Nation’s Federal Judges deserve Facts and Science, not Political Fraud and False Science on Climate,” Trump wrote. “With this TRUTH, I hereby order Federal Suspension and Debarment Officials to review this conduct.”Trump added, “Our Taxpayers should not be funding Climate Fraud, and Judges should never have relied upon it.”Blackburn’s letter expands the scrutiny beyond the withdrawn manual and into the Federal Judicial Center’s broader climate-related educational programming for judges.The senator cited a report by State Armor, a national security organization that has accused ELI of advancing Chinese strategic and energy interests. Blackburn wrote that ELI’s Climate Judiciary Project, launched in 2018 in coordination with the Federal Judicial Center, has provided training to more than 2,000 judges.China’s national flag flutters in the wind in Beijing, on May 12, 2026. (Maxim Shemetov/Pool Photo via AP, File) She also cited allegations that the program’s materials sought to make judges more receptive to climate litigation and included lessons on “implicit bias” and “Resistance to Change.”Blackburn asked the center to explain how its Education Division vetted ELI as a possible educational partner for federal judges and court staff, what it has done to ensure the Chinese Communist Party has no role in judicial programming, and whether it works with other organizations with political or financial ties to foreign nations. She also asked whether the center would immediately cease all educational programming involving ELI or its Climate Judiciary Project.The inquiry comes as the National Academies has released a new report on climate attribution science. John Shu, a court watcher and constitutional law expert who served in both Bush administrations, said the report could be used by climate plaintiffs in the pending Suncor case to strengthen their arguments against energy companies.Shu’s broader objection is that materials intended to help judges neutrally evaluate scientific evidence should not be shaped by lawyers or advocates with a direct stake in climate litigation. In his view, plaintiffs should not be able to influence the scientific standards judges use to assess evidence and then rely on those same standards to win their cases.“The Judicial Reference Manual and reports from NASEM are supposed to help judges fulfill their obligations to carefully evaluate expert testimony under the landmark 1993 Supreme Court case, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,” Shu said. “Climate change plaintiffs are not supposed to craftily rig evidentiary standards by which their own purported evidence will be adjudicated.”CONSERVATIVES URGE SUPREME COURT TO QUASH LAWSUIT OVER CLIMATE CHANGE HARMSThe Washington Examiner contacted the Federal Judicial Center but did not receive a response.Read Blackburn’s full letter below: 7.22.26 Letter to FJC Re Environmental Law Institute[1] by reportoftheday