We need to rewrite as news article, meeting constraints. Must start directly with lead paragraph (no heading before it). Use
for headings and
for paragraphs. Under 500 words. No heading before lead. So first paragraph is lead. Then we can include subheadings (
) for sections like “Allegations of Bias” and “Calls to Defund NASEM”. Ensure short paragraphs (2-3 sentences max). Bold and energetic tone: confident, direct sentences, no hedging. Use facts, attribute claims. Avoid casual phrasing. No first-person. Use staff reporter voice.
We need to ensure total words <500. Let's count approximate. We'll craft maybe ~350 words. Structure: Lead paragraph: coalition of 25 state AGs calls to defund NASEM, using taxpayer money for climate lawsuits. That's the hook. Then paragraph about Aug 27 letter details. Then paragraph about manual chapter conflict. Then
Allegations of Bias. Then paragraph(s) describing bias claims, quotes from critics, Trump, Jordan/Issa letter, FJC removal, NASEM review.
Then paragraph about AGs concerns about review being sham.
Then paragraph about specific criticisms: misquotes IPCC, ghostwritten by Michael Burger, funders etc.
Then paragraph about Jessica Wentz defense.
Then paragraph about NASEM report on extreme weather attribution, criticism from Steven Koonin.
Then paragraph about methodology linking GHG to harms.
Then paragraph about pending Supreme Court case Suncor Energy v. Boulder County.
Then
Calls to Defund NASEM. Paragraph about AEI statement.
Then paragraph about AG letter demands for independent review.
Then paragraph about funding amounts.
Then paragraph about NASEM mission statement.
Need to keep each paragraph 2-3 sentences max.
Let’s draft.
Word count: Let’s approximate.
Lead: maybe 45 words.
Paragraph 2: 40.
Paragraph 3: 35.
Allegations…: maybe 2 paragraphs.
Paragraph 4: 30.
Paragraph 5: 30.
Paragraph 6: 30.
Paragraph 7: 30.
Paragraph 8: 30.
Paragraph 9: 30.
Paragraph 10: 30.
Paragraph 11: 30.
Paragraph 12: 30.
Paragraph 13: 30.
Paragraph 14: 30.
Paragraph 15: 30.
Total maybe ~500. Need to be careful.
Let’s write concise.
We’ll need to ensure no more than 500 words. Let’s count after writing.
We’ll write each paragraph as
.
Let’s draft:
A coalition of 25 state attorneys general demanded that the federal government cut funding to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, saying the group used taxpayer money to back plaintiffs in climate lawsuits against energy companies.
In an August 27 letter, the AGs urged agencies and Congress to end grants to NASEM, arguing that its reports “prop up litigation theories that courts from Maryland to Mississippi to California have rejected.”
The dispute centers on a chapter the National Academies helped write for the Federal Judicial Center’s Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, a guide judges use in thousands of climate damage suits seeking billions in compensation.
Allegations of Bias
Critics say the manual’s climate chapter backs plaintiff claims while ignoring defense arguments, calling it “biased programming” that predisposes judges toward suits alleging fossil‑fuel harms.
President Donald Trump denounced the manual on Truth Social, labeling it “fraudulent, biased, and misleading,” and said taxpayers should not fund “climate fraud.”
In January, Representatives Jim Jordan and Darrell Issa warned the FJC that the chapter appeared designed to sway judges in favor of plaintiffs, a claim the FJC addressed by removing the chapter from its manual.
NASEM initially kept the chapter online but pulled it on August 7 pending an internal review, stating that “questions about the processes used to develop the chapter warrant an independent review.”
The 25 AGs argue the review is a sham, noting it has been five months since the controversy erupted and that the process remains secret, excluding external experts and public access.
They add that the chapter misquotes the IPCC, contradicts the manual’s own statistics section, and was allegedly ghost‑written by litigator Michael Burger, with funders and reviewers tied to climate activism and litigation.
Columbia Law School professor Jessica Wentz defended the chapter in a Wall Street Journal op‑ed, asserting it underwent rigorous review, that Burger contributed nothing, and that it is “objective and rooted in settled science.”
NASEM’s July report “Attribution of Extreme Weather and Climate Events and Their Impacts 2026” bolstered the legal theory that extreme weather damages can be linked to fossil‑fuel emissions, a cornerstone of current climate lawsuits.
Physicist Steven Koonin warned that the report lacks comparative data graphs showing attribution results against actual observations, questioning whether the methodology is “any good.”
The report outlines a causal chain from greenhouse‑gas emissions to climate change, extreme weather, community impacts, and economic loss, reinforcing the attribution argument.
A pending Supreme Court case, Suncor Energy v. Boulder County, could set precedent for many similar climate damage suits.
Calls to Defund NASEM
American Energy Institute CEO Jason Isaac urged an immediate halt to federal funding, saying the National Academies “launder climate activism through its name” and produced a “scientific‑sounding basis” for lawsuits already rejected by courts.
The AGs’ letter demands a truly independent review with an external panel, no NASEM staff or activists, and full public disclosure.
The letter notes NASEM received over $140 million in 2024 federal funds, including $84 million from Transportation, $32 million from Defense, and $23 million from Health and Human Services.
NASEM’s spokesperson said the organization’s mission is “to provide independent, objective scientific advice,” but did not respond further before press time.
Now count words. Let’s count roughly.
Paragraph 1: A(1) coalition2 of3 25 4 state5 attorneys6 general7 demanded8 that9 the10 federal11 government12 cut13 funding14 to15 the16 National17 Academies18 of19 Sciences,20 Engineering,21 and22 Medicine,23 saying24 the25 group26 used27 taxpayer28 money29 to30 back31 plaintiffs32 in33 climate34 lawsuits35 against36 energy37 companies38. => 38 words.
Paragraph2: In1 an2 August3 27 4 letter,5 the6 AGs7 urged8 agencies9 and10 Congress11 to12 end13 grants14 to15 NASEM,16 arguing17 that18 its19 reports20 “prop21 up22 litigation23 theories24 that25 courts26 from27 Maryland28 to29 Mississippi30 to31 California32 have33 rejected.” => 33 words.
Paragraph3: The1 dispute2 centers3 on4 a5 chapter6 the7 National8 Academies9 helped10 write11 for12 the13 Federal14 Judicial15 Center’s16 Reference17 Manual18 on19 Scientific20 Evidence,21 a22 guide23 judges24 use25 in26 thousands27 of28 climate29 damage30 suits31 seeking32 billions33 in34 compensation35. => 35 words.
heading not counted as words maybe but fine.
Paragraph4 (Allegations…): Critics1 say2 the3 manual’s4 climate5 chapter6 backs7 plaintiff8 claims9 while10 ignoring11 defense12 arguments,13 calling14 it15 “biased16 programming”17 that18 predisposes19 judges20 toward21 suits22 alleging23 fossil‑fuel24 harms25. => 25 words.
Paragraph5: President1 Donald2 Trump3 denounced4 the5 manual6 on7 Truth8 Social,9 labeling10 it11 “fraudulent,12 biased,13 and14 misleading,”15 and16 said17 taxpayers18 should19 not20 fund21 “climate22 fraud.”23 => 23 words.
Paragraph6: In1 January,2 Representatives3 Jim4 Jordan5 and6 Darrell7 Issa8 warned9 the10 FJC11 that12 the13 chapter14 appeared15 designed16 to17 sway18 judges19 in20 favor21 of22 plaintiffs,23 a24 claim25 the26 FJC27 addressed28 by29 removing30 the31 chapter32 from33 its34 manual35. => 35 words.
Paragraph7: NASEM1 initially2 kept3 the4 chapter5 online6 but7 pulled8 it9 on10 August11 7 12 pending13 an14 internal15 review,16 stating17 that18 “questions19 about20 the21 processes22 used23 to24 develop25 the26 chapter27 warrant28 an28 independent29 review.”30 => 30 words.
Paragraph8: The1 25 2 AGs3 argue4 the5 review6 is7 a8 sham,9 noting10 it11 has12 been13 five14 months15 since16 the17 controversy18 erupted19 and20 that21 the22 process23 remains24 secret,25 excluding26 external27 experts28 and29 public30 access31. => 31 words.
Paragraph9: They1 add2 that3 the4 chapter5 misquotes6 the7 IPCC,8 contradicts9 the10 manual’s11 own12 statistics13 section,14 and15 was16 allegedly17 ghost‑written18 by19 litigator20 Michael21 Burger,22 with23 funders24 and25 reviewers26 tied27 to28 climate29 activism30 and31 litigation32. => 32 words.
Paragraph10: Columbia1 Law2 School3 professor4 Jessica5 Wentz6 defended7 the8 chapter9 in10 a11 Wall12 Street13 Journal14 op‑ed,15 asserting16 it17 underwent18 rigorous19 review,20 that21 Burger22 contributed23 nothing,24 and25 that26 it27 is28 “objective29 and30 rooted31 in32 settled33 science.”34 => 34 words.
Paragraph11: NASEM’s1 July2 report3 “Attribution4 of5 Extreme6 Weather7 and8 Climate9 Events10 and11 Their12 Impacts13 2026”14 bolstered15 the16 legal17 theory18 that19 extreme20 weather21 damages22 can23 be24 linked25 to26 fossil‑fuel27 emissions,28 a29 cornerstone30 of31 current34 climate35 lawsuits36. => 36 words.
Paragraph12: Physicist1 Steven2 Koonin3 warned4 that5 the6 report7 lacks8 comparative9 data10 graphs11 showing12 attribution13 results14 against15 actual16 observations,17 questioning18 whether19 the20 methodology21 is22 “any23 good.”24 => 24 words.
Paragraph13: The1 report2 outlines3 a4 causal5 chain6 from7 greenhouse‑gas8 emissions9 to10 climate11 change,12 extreme13 weather,14 community15 impacts,16 and17 economic18 loss,19 reinforcing20 the21 attribution22 argument23. => 23 words.
Paragraph14: A1 pending2 Supreme3 Court4 case,5 Suncor6 Energy7 v.8 Boulder9 County,10 could11 set12 precedent13 for14 many15 similar16 climate17 damage18 suits19. => 19 words.
Calls to Defund NASEM: heading not counted.
Paragraph15: American1 Energy2 Institute3 CEO4 Jason5 Isaac6 urged7 an8 immediate9 halt10 to11 federal11? Wait duplicate. Let’s recount: American1 Energy2 Institute3 CEO4 Jason5 Isaac6 urged7 an8 immediate9 halt10 to11 federal12 funding,13 saying14 the15 National13? Wait we already used 13 for federal. Let’s rewrite: “American Energy Institute CEO Jason Isaac urged an immediate halt to federal funding, saying the National Academies “launder climate activism through its name” and produced a “scientific‑sounding basis” for lawsuits already rejected by courts.” Count: American1 Energy2 Institute3 CEO4 Jason5 Isaac6 urged7 an8 immediate9 halt10 to10? Wait “federal” is 11, “funding,” 12, “saying”13, “the”14, “National”15, “Academies”16, ““launder”17, “climate”17? Actually “climate” 17, “activism”18, “through”19, “its”20, “name”21, “and”22, “produced”23, “a”24, ““scientific‑sounding”25, “basis”26, “for”27, “lawsuits”28, “already”29, “rejected”30, “by”31, “courts.”32. So 32 words.
Paragraph16: The1 AGs’2 letter3 demands4 a5 truly6 independent7 review8 with9 an10 external11 panel,12 no13 NASEM14 staff15 or16 activists,17 and18 full19 public20 disclosure21. => 21 words.
Paragraph17: The1 letter2 notes3 NASEM4 received5 over6 $140 million7 in8 20249 federal10 funds,11 including12 $84 million13 from14 Transportation,15 $32 million16 from17 Defense,18 and19 $23 million20 from21 Health22 and23 Services24. => 24 words.
Paragraph18: NASEM’s1 spokesperson2 said3 the4 organization’s5 mission6 is7 “to8 provide9 independent,10 objective11 scientific12 advice,”13 but14 did15 not16 respond17 further18 before19 press20 time21. => 21 words.
Now total words: sum.
Para1 38
Para2 33 =>71
Para3 35 =>106
Para4 25 =>131
Para5 23 =>154
Para6 35 =>189
Para7 30 =>219
Para8 31 =>250
Para9 32 =>282
Para10 34 =>316
Para11 36 =>352
Para12 24 =>376
Para13 23 =>399
Para14 19 =>418
Para15 32 =>450
Para16 21 =>471
Para17 24 =>495
Para18 21 =>516
We exceed 500 words. Need to reduce to under 500. Let’s trim some paragraphs, maybe combine or shorten.
We need total under 500. Let’s aim for ~470.
We can shorten some paragraphs: maybe reduce Para1, Para2, etc. Also maybe remove some sentences.
Let’s edit.
Goal: reduce about 46 words.
We can shorten Para1 to 30 words.
Rewrite Para1: “A coalition of 25 state attorneys general demanded that the federal government cut funding to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, saying the group used taxpayer money to back plaintiffs in climate lawsuits against energy companies.” Count: A1 coalition2 of3 254 state5 attorneys6 general7 demanded8 that9 the10 federal11 government12 cut13 funding14 to15 the16 National17 Academies18 of19 Sciences,20 Engineering,21 and22 Medicine,23 saying24 the25 group26 used27 taxpayer28 money29 to30 back31 plaintiffs32 in33 climate34 lawsuits35 against36 energy37 companies38. 38 words, still high. Could cut “state” maybe. But still 38. Maybe we can cut “state” and “energy”. Let’s try: “A coalition of 25 attorneys general demanded that the federal government cut funding to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, saying the group used taxpayer money to back plaintiffs in climate lawsuits.” Count: A1 coalition2 of3 254 attorneys5 general6 demanded7 that8 the9 federal10 government11 cut12 funding13 to14 the15 National16 Academies17 of18 Sciences,19 Engineering,20 and21 Medicine,22 saying23 the24 group25 used26 taxpayer27 money28 to29 back30 plaintiffs31 in32 climate33 lawsuits34. 34 words. Good.
Para2: maybe shorten: “In an August 27 letter, the AGs urged agencies and Congress to end grants to NASEM, arguing its reports “prop up litigation theories that courts from Maryland to Mississippi to California have rejected.”” Count: In1 an2 August3 274 letter,5 the6 AGs7 urged8 agencies9 and10 Congress11 to11? Wait “to” already used. Let’s count properly: In1 an2 August3 274 letter,5 the6 AGs7 urged8 agencies9 and10 Congress11 to12 end13 grants14 to15 NASEM,16 arguing17 its18 reports19 “prop20 up21 litigation22 theories23 that24 courts25 from26 Maryland27 to28 Mississippi29 to30 California31 have32 rejected.”33. So 33 words, okay.
Para3: maybe shorten: “The dispute centers on a chapter the National Academies helped write for the Federal Judicial Center’s Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, a guide judges use in thousands of climate damage suits seeking billions in compensation.” Count: The1 dispute2 centers3 on4 a5 chapter6 the7 National8 Academies9 helped10 write11 for12 the13 Federal14 Judicial15 Center’s16 Reference16? Wait we have “Reference” then “Manual”. Let’s recount: The1 dispute2 centers3 on4 a5 chapter6 the7 National8 Academies9 helped10 write11 for13 the14 Federal15 Judicial16 Center’s17 Reference18 Manual19 on20 Scientific21 Evidence,22 a23 guide24 judges25 use26 in27 thousands28 of29 climate30 damage31 suits32 seeking33 billions34 in35 compensation36. 36 words.
Para4 (Allegations…): maybe shorten: “Critics say the manual’s climate chapter backs plaintiff claims while ignoring defense arguments, calling it “biased programming” that predisposes judges toward suits alleging fossil‑fuel harms.” Count: Critics1 say2 the3 manual’s4 climate5 chapter6 backs7 plaintiff8 claims9 while10 ignoring11 defense12 arguments,13 calling14 it15 “biased16 programming”17 that18 predisposes19 judges20 toward21 suits21? Wait we have “toward” 20? Let’s recount: Critics1 say2 the3 manual’s4 climate5 chapter6 backs7 plaintiff8 claims9 while10 ignoring11 defense12 arguments,13 calling14 it15 “biased16 programming”17 that18 predisposes19 judges20 toward21 suits21 alleging22 fossil‑fuel23 harms24. 24 words.
Para5 (Trump): “President Donald Trump denounced the manual on Truth Social, labeling it “fraudulent, biased, and misleading,” and said taxpayers should not fund_ction: -1
