Newly disclosed government records show that the Trump administration secretly created a group to challenge established climate science. These records reveal actions that critics describe as unlawful, rushed, and politically driven. They also show how the process ignored public health concerns and scientific standards.
The documents became public after a court ordered their release. They detail how a hidden “Climate Working Group” prepared a report later used by the Environmental Protection Agency. That report supported a proposal to repeal the 2009 Endangerment Finding on greenhouse gas pollution.
The Endangerment Finding states that climate pollution harms human health and public welfare. For years, courts and scientific reviews have repeatedly upheld this determination. However, the newly released records suggest the administration tried to undermine it through secrecy and coordination.
Secret Creation and Built-In Objectives
The records show that officials formed the Climate Working Group without public notice. Federal law requires advisory groups to operate openly and transparently. Despite this, the group met privately at least 18 times during 2025.
Emails repeatedly stressed the importance of secrecy. Political officials warned members to stay silent until the work finished. They also advised limiting participation to a small inner circle.
From the start, the group shared a clear objective. Members discussed how to “call into question” the scientific basis of the Endangerment Finding. They did not debate whether climate pollution harms people. Instead, they searched for ways to introduce doubt into settled science.
Several messages show members admitting the science strongly supported the original finding. One member stated that overturning the finding using science alone would likely fail. As a result, the group shifted toward legal and policy arguments. Political officials guided this approach. They shared specific Clean Air Act provisions with the group. They described these sections as most relevant to the policymaking process.
This guidance shaped the report’s direction. Rather than acting independently, the group aligned its work with legal strategies. As a result, science and policy became deeply intertwined.
The timeline also raised concerns. The group began work in early April 2025. Initially, officials set a deadline just weeks later. Members acknowledged the rushed pace. One suggested adding a note asking readers for leniency due to time limits. Despite this, officials treated the report as authoritative.
Political Coordination and Ignored Climate Warnings
The records reveal close coordination between the group and federal agencies. Political officials served as constant intermediaries. They ensured the report aligned with the EPA’s regulatory plans.
Emails show officials reassuring members that the EPA would wait for their report. They also promised the agency would rely on it during rulemaking. Some messages encouraged direct coordination with EPA legal teams. Deadlines often followed political schedules. Officials referenced travel plans and high-level meetings. Science timelines clearly took a back seat.
As publication approached, internal reviewers raised serious concerns. They criticized the report for covering only a narrow slice of recent research. They also flagged heavy reliance on non-peer-reviewed sources.
Reviewers described sections as misleading and inaccurate. They warned about cherry-picked data and unsupported claims. They questioned whether the report met basic scientific standards. Despite these warnings, political officials discouraged major revisions. They suggested most comments would be rejected. They also advised keeping edits minimal.
Officials even warned against changes that could shift page numbers. By then, the EPA had already cited the draft report. As a result, reviewers’ concerns remained hidden from the public. The final report appeared in late July. The EPA cited it more than twenty times in its repeal proposal. This reliance continued despite acknowledged flaws.
Disregard for Health, Science, and Transparency
The records show the group largely ignored human health impacts. Members admitted they rarely discussed health or welfare issues. This omission stands out, given the Endangerment Finding’s purpose. When one member suggested a health-focused title, another objected. They noted the report barely addressed health topics. This exchange revealed a major disconnect.
The records also show disdain for established scientific assessments. Some members dismissed major scientific studies without reading them. Others questioned the integrity of academic and government researchers. In private messages, members used extreme language about public communication. They discussed forcing readers to accept their arguments. Such comments raised concerns about respect for the public.
Leaked memo reveals ICE can enter homes without judge-signed warrants
Transparency issues extended beyond meetings. Political officials frequently used personal email accounts for official work. Several communications involved multiple officials using private addresses. These practices complicate public oversight. They also raise questions about compliance with record-keeping laws.
Environmental and scientific organizations argue the records confirm unlawful conduct. They say the administration violated advisory committee transparency laws. A court has already agreed and ordered disclosures. So far, agencies have released more than 68,000 pages of records. The court has ordered additional releases in the coming days. More documents may further clarify the process.
Critics argue the EPA proposal relies on a tainted foundation. They describe the report as secretive, politicized, and flawed. They warn that repealing the Endangerment Finding would weaken public protections.
According to them, removing the finding would increase pollution risks. It could also worsen climate-driven disasters and health impacts. The released records now allow the public to judge the process itself.
