Home » News » Inside the anti-climate campaign against researchers
Inside the anti-climate campaign against researchers
Source: By CHELSEA HARVEY, LESLEY CLARK and CORBIN HIAR, Politico • Posted: Tuesday, September 29, 2026
A POLITICO investigation reveals more than 100 open records requests demanding documents from climate scientists nationwide.
Illustration by Claudine Hellmuth/POLITICO (source images via iStock)
Conservative organizations are filing open records requests by the dozens at public universities, demanding emails, research drafts, correspondence with law firms and other documents from academics studying climate change.
Targets and their allies say it’s all an effort to undermine the role climate research is playing in litigation against U.S. fossil fuel companies.
It’s the latest strategy in a decades-long campaign by right-leaning groups to discredit scholars whose work could persuade judges and juries in the high-stakes climate cases. Now it’s gathering steam amid a growing push by the Trump administration to block dozens of lawsuits levied at energy companies by communities that were affected by extreme weather.
A POLITICO investigation has uncovered more than 100 open records requests filed at 19 public universities across the country, targeting at least 30 researchers over the past five years. More than half have been filed since President Donald Trump’s reelection in November 2024.
\Special interest groups have for years used public records to investigate and intimidate academics who are conducting research they disagree with or oppose. But the current wave of requests constitutes a larger and more targeted campaign against researchers whose work could be used by lawyers to advance climate lawsuits. Many of the lawsuits are in early stages, meaning there is scant public documentation showing how the records requests may factor into specific cases.
“I have never seen this many open records requests in such a short time,” said Lauren Kurtz, executive director of the nonprofit Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, which was founded in 2011 to protect free and open debatewithin the scientific community, and where many scientists seek advice when they’ve received an open records request. “There is a very concerted effort to derail the state climate litigation cases going on.”
Thousands of climate lawsuits have been filed over the last 25 years, and around two dozen such cases are currently moving through the nation’s courts. None in the U.S. have so far forced fossil fuel companies to pay for climate-related damages.
But legal experts have long argued that advancements in climate science — particularly extreme event attribution science, which uses climate models to demonstrate the influence of greenhouse gas emissions on natural disasters — could strengthen climate litigation.
“If any of these [pending cases] actually do get to trial on the merits, climate attribution will become a central issue,” said Michael Gerrard, founder and faculty director of Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.
POLITICO quantified climate-litigation-related requests by searching universities’ online open records portals, which contain public archives of the requests they’ve received, or by using open records laws to obtain these archives in states where local or state governments have sued the fossil fuel industry. POLITICO also interviewed more than a dozen academics targeted with open records requests within the past year. Some of them were granted anonymity because they were concerned that speaking publicly might deter other scientists from working with them or attract more records requests.
At least nine nonprofits, law firms, consulting companies and other organizations have targeted climate researchers with records requests over the past five years, POLITICO’s analysis found. The majority of requests come from two conservative nonprofits focused on transparency in government: The Patriots Foundation and Government Accountability & Oversight. Neither responded to requests for comment.
The Patriots Foundation has not publicly discussed its reasons for filing open records requests. But Government Accountability & Oversight has expressed its opposition to climate litigation by publishing blog posts that question the credibility of researchers or lawyers involved in the lawsuits. Some legal experts say that could weaken lawsuits that cite scientific studies as evidence.
Climate scientists are wary of these information-gathering requests, fearful that the findings could be cherry-picked by those who seek to undermine their research.
In one famous incident in 2009 known as “Climategate,” hackers leaked thousands of emails from a U.K. climate research institute. Conservative bloggers published details from the emails that they claimed showed scientists manipulating data.
One of the scientists, Michael Mann, had his work investigated by his university at the time, Penn State, which found no wrongdoing. He later sued two bloggers for defamation.
Scientists are overwhelmingly confident that greenhouse gas emissions drive global warming, but they often engage in spirited debates about technical details. Conservative groups could use partial quotes from researchers’ emails to “misleadingly” suggest that scientists are still debating the settled nature of climate change, Gerrard said.
‘Dramatic increase’
Most of the targeted academics are not directly involved with environmental litigation. But many have published studies examining the links between global warming and extreme weather or public health, and some have spoken on panels that aim to educate judges and lawyers about climate science.
Legal experts describe many of the records requests as “fishing expeditions.”
“Some of the folks that have come to us are people who have been prominently associated with state climate education efforts — but others are not,” said Kurtzof the nonprofit Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, where academics often seek information about the kinds of documents their universities are legally obligated to turn over in response to public records requests. “They’re just trying to see who they can ensnare in this, even if their connections are incredibly tangential.”
Some targeted researchers are experiencing personal or professional consequences.
Prominent conservative legal activist Chris Horner, who founded Government Accountability & Oversight, used public records in 2022 to obtain emails from UCLA environmental law professor Ann Carlson, who was nominated by then-President Joe Biden to lead the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The agency sets automobile fuel efficiency standards.
Government Accountability & Oversight sent the documents, which detailed Carlson’s consulting work on climate lawsuits, to Fox News, the news network reported. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican, later cited them when opposing her nomination. Carlson ultimately withdrew.
A $51.5 billion climate lawsuit brought by Multnomah County, Oregon, against more than a dozen major fossil fuel companies has been a focus of Government Accountability & Oversight. The organization as recently as August posted emails and other documents showing links between Oregon State University scientists and Roger Worthington, one of the lawyers leading the case.
Worthington has financially supported academic research on climate, and was rebuked last year by an Oregon judge for failing to inform the court that he’d helped fund a scientific study cited as evidence in the Multnomah case. Congressional Republicans ordered him to attend a closed-door grilling in July as part of their investigation into what they say are efforts to influence judges overseeing climate lawsuits.
Government Accountability & Oversight calls Worthington’s ties to climate researchers “academia for rent.” Worthington says the group has filed so many records requests it’s damaged his relationships with scientists.
“A lot of the professors that I normally talk to all the time are reluctant now to talk to me because they know everything they write is going to be the subject of an open records request,” he told POLITICO. “It’s sheer intimidation.”
The fossil fuel industry and its allies, including nearly all 27 Republican state attorneys general, have gone to great lengths to prevent climate lawsuits from going to trial.
The Supreme Court on Oct. 5 will consider industry’s argument that the lawsuits are preempted by federal law. And the Trump administration has taken aim at the cases by filing a lawsuit in May to block Minnesota’s climate lawsuit, arguing it undermines federal authority. Federal judges have rejected additional efforts by the Department of Justice to block Hawaii and Michigan from filing climate lawsuits at all.
But the administration in the last month has notched three courthouse wins, with a federal judge tossing out Michigan’s lawsuit and two judges striking down a New York state law targeting the fossil fuel industry.
Some groups continue to educate judges about the impacts of climate change and the role of climate science in the courts. The nonprofit Environmental Law Institute is one of the most active organizations. Its Climate Judiciary Project, established in 2018, offers judicial education programs focused on climate science. The institute notes that its services are designed to provide information without advising judges on how they should rule on cases.
Those efforts have attracted the attention of pro-fossil-fuel groups and conservative lawmakers. Numerous records requests filed by Government Accountability & Oversight, the Patriots Foundation and other organizations asked for communications with the Environmental Law Institute, as well as other left-leaning nonprofits and foundations known for supporting climate science and education initiatives.
“We are aware of these requests but have no interactions with these [conservative] organizations,” said Nick Collins, the Environmental Law Institute’s director of communications, in an email. “There has been a dramatic increase in political attacks on nonprofit organizations indicating this isn’t just about ELI or CJP, but a broader effort to undermine science and the rule of law.”
Fossil fuel links
POLITICO has contacted more than two dozen people currently or formerly associated with the groups filing open records requests. All of them have declined to comment or have not responded to requests for interviews, and it’s unclear exactly what’s driving their interest in climate litigation.
But an analysis of tax filings and other public documents reveals that some groups are closely connected to the Trump administration or the fossil fuel industry.
The Patriots Foundation, a self-described “government watchdog,” shares staff and an Iowa address with the Concordia Group, a public affairs and direct mail firm that has touted its work for the American Carbon Alliance, an ethanol and carbon capture pipeline industry group. Tax filings show that the Patriots Foundation paid Concordia more than $100,000 for consulting services in 2024. Concordia and the American Carbon Alliance did not respond to requests for comment.
The Patriots Foundation also paid nearly $212,000 in 2024 to the conservative law firm Holtzman Vogel, which has filed records requests on the organization’s behalf. The firm is frequently retained by nonprofits funded by conservative legal activist Leonard Leo. Some of the nonprofits are working to pass state liability shields for the oil industry, ProPublica reported in April. Holtzman Vogel did not respond to requests for comment.
Holtzman Vogel contracts with at least one additional organization that has filed open records requests. The law firm’s name appears in tax filings for the conservative nonprofit Americans for Public Trust, alongside the Leo-founded public relations firm CRC Advisors, whose clients include oil and gas giants. Annie Talley, president of Americans for Public Trust, was previously an aide to Trump in the White House Counsel’s Office. CRC Advisors and Americans for Public Trust did not respond to requests for comment, including requests addressed to Talley and Leo.
Government Accountability & Oversight has stronger financial ties to the fossil fuel industry. The group was co-founded in 2018 by Horner, the conservative legal activist who was previously a paid contractor with the coal producer Alpha Natural Resources, The Intercept reported in 2015.
Government Accountability & Oversight, itself, has received $1.5 million in donations since 2020 from the Joseph W. Craft III Foundation, which is named for the billionaire CEO of Alliance Resource Partners, a coal producer.
Horner, Craft, Alliance and current leaders of Government Accountability & Oversight did not respond to requests for interviews. But the organization has publicly acknowledged its desire to investigate climate lawsuits.
Government Accountability & Oversight in June sought to join a Trumpadministration lawsuit aimed at undercutting Minnesota’s effort to hold the fossil fuel industry financially accountable for climate change. The group stated that it possessed “unique information” no other party to the lawsuit could provide, adding that it had spent “years investigating the coordinated climate-litigation campaign” through public records requests and state lawsuits.
U.S. District Judge Susan Nelson denied the group’s request, saying it was filed too late and that the parties were already “well-represented by talented legal counsel.”
‘I was devastated’
Many targeted scientists say harassing and silencing researchers is part of the plan.
“Absolutely, the scientists I’ve talked with all believe that intimidation is one of the main goals,” said Kristie Ebi, a scientist specializing in climate change and public health at the University of Washington.
She’s received nine public records requests since September 2025, each demanding different forms of correspondence from her official university email accounts. Some asked for messages between her and other researchers. Others sought communication she’s had with nonprofits or foundations.
Ebi isn’t involved with any climate lawsuits. But she’s unsurprised that some of her recent activities attracted attention from allies of the fossil fuel industry.
In 2022, she spoke at a workshop hosted by the Environmental Law Institute aimed at educating state judges about climate science. Last year she signed an open letter, along with dozens of other scientists, defending the EPA’s endangerment finding — a 2009 conclusion that greenhouse gas emissions threaten human health — and decrying the Trump administration’s move to overturn it.
Others have seen their academic work on climate policy become public in ways that they did not anticipate and that have had professional consequences.
Some records requests are relatively easy to dispense with. But others seek thousands of documents, which can take days or weeks to find. University administrations are responsible for responding to records requests, but often ask targeted employees to conduct time-consuming searches for relevant emails.
Rachel Rothschild, an attorney and legal scholar at the University of Michigan Law School, says she knows firsthand the implications of having academic work suddenly circulated — and used by critics — after an open records request. She helped develop the legal framework for state-level climate superfund laws that would require fossil fuel companies to pay for climate adaptation projects. The industry has challenged the legality of some state superfund bills.
Rothschild has been the subject of seven records requests from three different groups since February 2024, including Government Accountability & Oversight, which sued the University of Michigan two years ago for denying its records demands.
A state judge dismissed the lawsuit in August. But Rothschild says the case consumed much of her personal and professional life over the past two years and damaged some professional relationships. New York University’s Institute for Policy Integrity, where Rothschild was previously a fellow and later an affiliated scholar, limited contact with Rothschild in 2025 and informed her that they were considering terminating her affiliation out of concern that the lawsuit might make the institution vulnerable to litigation, she said.
