House Oversight Chairman Comer Questions National Academies' Review of EPA Finding for Potential Partisan Bias

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) has raised concerns over the actions of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, according to a recent revelation. In a letter to the president of the National Academy of Sciences, Marcia McNutt, which was reported on by House Oversight Committee, Comer requested documents related to what he considers a "fast-tracked" review of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 2009 Endangerment Finding.

The inquiry centers around the National Academies' decision to review the EPA's rescission of this finding, which labeled greenhouse gas emissions as detrimental to public health and welfare, done so without any apparent request from a government entity. Comer's contention lies with the fast pace at which this study was announced and pledged to be completed by September, arguing that such a rapid review of over a decade's science could indicate a prejudged conclusion. He stated, “This decision appears to be inconsistent with the purpose of the National Academies and a blatant partisan act to undermine the Trump Administration. With such an unprecedented short timeline for reviewing evidence gathered over a 16-year period, the Committee is additionally concerned that the results of this study have been predetermined.” Given that, without the direction of a federal agency, the committee's accelerated timeline for such a complex study seems out of the ordinary, as noted by the House Oversight Committee.

The original 2009 Endangerment Finding has been a foundation for environmental regulations across multiple industries, including automotive, agriculture, and energy production. Comer pointed to the vast costs incurred, in excess of $1 trillion, and the resultant spike in energy prices for U.S. consumers as a result of these policies. The Chairman expressed worry that the study by the National Academies may not be devoid of political bias. According to the letter Chairman Comer sent to McNutt, "Members of the National Academy of Sciences committee appeared to exhibit partisan bias when conducting the fast-track review of the Endangerment Finding and failed to disclose their conflicts of interest despite the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requiring them to do so," a statement obtained by the House Oversight Committee.

The House Oversight Committee also holds trepidations concerning the impartiality of the National Academies’ members, citing past instances where the organization seemingly took politically partisan stances. For example, the endorsement of President Biden's Top Science Advisor in 2021 is seen as problematic by Comer, who also criticized the National Academies for engaging in "politicized DEI-focused research and studies." “Given these positions and affiliations, it is unlikely these individuals can conduct an impartial scientific review and the Committee has serious concerns that the National Academy of Sciences appears to be enabling the aforementioned partisan conflicts of interest,” Comer concluded.