EPA Orders Employees to “No Longer Engage with the Environmental Law Institute”
The move marks another firm stand against special interests steering American policy from the shadows.
A few days ago, I wrote that green activists were melting down as the Trump administration strategically gutted their “climate crisis” funding and eco-activist agendas.
The melting intensifies, as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently cut ties with the Environmental Law Institute (ELI). Official statements from the agency indicate that the decision was taken because of concerns about ELI’s alleged attempts to “inappropriately influence the judiciary,” particularly in the context of climate litigation and judicial education programs.
EPA Deputy Administrator David Fotouhi said in a memo sent Wednesday that agency employees should no longer engage with the Environmental Law Institute, a more than 50-year-old nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that holds policy forums and training seminars.
The group has faced criticism from GOP officials over providing climate science courses for judges.
“It is no longer in the Agency’s interest for employees to participate in their official capacity in any conference, program or other event organized by the Environmental Law Institute, including but not limited to ELI’s Climate Judiciary Project,” Fotouhi said in the memo, which was obtained by POLITICO’s E&E News.
The deputy administrator added, “Thus, EPA employees should not accept invitations to or participate in such events, including ELI’s Annual Award Dinner in Washington, D.C., scheduled for October 7, 2025, in their official capacity.”
Big W.
This is a major blow to climate litigation.
🔗 https://t.co/iMmbqeeytj pic.twitter.com/Ll0sovjCxJ
— Chris Martz (@ChrisMartzWX) September 26, 2025
While the “Politico Pro” article above asserts that ELI was a “nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that holds policy forums and training seminars”, I have my doubts. For example, nearly two dozen Republican state attorneys general sent a letter to EPA chief Lee Zeldin Tuesday, calling on him to cancel funding to a “left-wing environmental group” — specifically the ELI’s “Climate Judiciary Project.”
“The Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project is using woke climate propaganda, under the guise of what they call ‘neutral’ education, to persuade judges and push their wildly unpopular agenda through the court system,” he said. “I commend President Trump’s efforts to cut waste and abuse during the first eight months of his presidency, and I am optimistic that his Administration will do the right thing and halt all funding to ELI.”
Knudsen spearheaded the letter sent to Zeldin Tuesday, which included the signatures of 22 other Republican state attorneys general, calling for the EPA to axe its funding to the left-wing environmental nonprofit, called the Environmental Law Institute, which oversees the Climate Judiciary Project (CJP).
The Environmental Law Institute founded the Climate Judiciary Project in 2018, which pitches itself as a “first-of-its-kind effort” that “provides judges with authoritative, objective, and trusted education on climate science, the impacts of climate change, and the ways climate science is arising in the law.”
American Energy Institute subsequently asked House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) to subpoena records from the EELI’s Climate Judiciary Project as part of an ongoing probe into the influence of climate advocacy groups in climate policy litigation.
For example, the “project” funded a study that was presented as “independent”.
Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, a conservative pro-U.S. energy production policy group, wrote a letter to Jordan last week pointing to evidence from a Sept. 12 Multnomah County v. ExxonMobil et al. court filing that he says suggests “covert coordination and judicial manipulation.”
“This new evidence raises serious red flags about the credibility of both the so-called science being used in climate lawsuits and the judicial training programs behind the bench,” Isaac told Fox News Digital.
According to Isaac’s letter to Jordan, the court filing submitted by Chevron Corporation earlier this month reveals that “one of the plaintiffs’ lead attorneys, Roger Worthington, had undisclosed involvement in at least two so-called scientific studies that the county is presenting as independent, peer-reviewed evidence.”
One of those studies “acknowledged funding from the Climate Judiciary Project in a draft version, but that disclosure was inexplicably removed from the final publication,” Isaac said in the letter.
ICYMI: The American Energy Institute is urging the @JudiciaryGOP to subpoena Climate Judiciary Project.
“The Environmental Law Institute has claimed neutrality, yet documents suggest coordination with plaintiffs’ counsel who stand to profit from the outcomes. If the same lawyers… pic.twitter.com/JjKxpTsszx
— JCN (@judicialnetwork) September 26, 2025
The decision to cut ties with the Environmental Law Institute marks another firm stand against special interests steering American policy from the shadows. By holding environmental organizations accountable and refocusing EPA priorities, President Trump and his team are delivering on a better environment, energy dominance, and a recovering economy… all while putting America first.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
It’s so encouraging to see the left and it’s many evil infiltrations being pushed back, at long last.
Which only underscores the absolute imperative of crushing the Dems in 2026 and 2028.
And the key to that is cleaning up our elections.
Yes, yes, yes.
Yanking the billions in government funding to the enemies is like hitting the supply lines and production factories in war.
Winning elections and cleaning up election integrity is key to staying on the offensive.
This mess will take years to clean up.
Yes, clean up the SOS voter roles. Six states refuse to release those role to DOJ. Can they be taken to court and forced to give up those roles? MN SOS has defied DOJ – they have had questionable behavior and voters for decades. They are masters at abusing the system.
Whey they lose a case, they ignore it and plow ahead. MN may not be the state to start with
the goals but we have to try.
Strong R states must get out all their voters. Absolutely must.
Why does “non-partisan” always look like left wing? Just like “bi-partisan” means democrats get most of what the want.
Almost.
More precisely, bipartisan means that Republicans HELP Democrats get what they want.
Had to upvote, unfortunately.
Had a “traditional” Republican become President, none of this chicanery would have been stopped.
If our judges need more education in anything it’s in the Constitution, limited government, and the need for secure elections.
A reminder that “nonpartisan” doesn’t mean neutral. It just means not affiliated with a specific political party. So a left=wing lobby that includes members of both major parties is nonpartisan, but definitely not neutral.
Technically accurate, but, practically irrelevant in the broader scheme of things. The Dhimmi-crats use and exploit the term “non-partisan” to give public relations cover to rabidly leftist organizations, when they are subjected to legitimate scrutiny and criticism of their leftist/Dhimmi-crat bent and agenda.
“Oh, why is the evil Trump attacking this wonderful organization? Don’t you know that it’s ‘non-partisan?’ “
I have to wonder how many billions of taxpayer dollars have vanished into the hands of climate hucksters through ‘Sue-and-Settle’ lawsuits, and how much of that tempting river of cash flowed into the hands of politicians who were supposed to be overseeing the process.
Any time one sees the Dhimmi-crat media shills/lapdogs/trained seals/stenographers refer to a political non-profit organization as allegedly “nonpartisan,” or, the organization itself self-characterizing using that word, it is as certain as the day is long that the entity is thoroughly and rabidly Dhimmi-crat in its staffing, agenda and loyalties.