Americans are once again learning that supposedly “nonpartisan” government institutions aren’t always as neutral as advertised — especially when it comes to climate politics.
The Federal Judicial Center (FJC), the taxpayer-funded agency tasked with educating and advising the federal judiciary, is facing serious scrutiny after revelations that left-wing climate activists and advocates helped author a controversial “Reference Guide on Climate Science” intended to influence how federal judges evaluate climate-related cases.
The FJC is supposed to provide judges with “accurate” and “objective” educational materials while avoiding political activism or policy advocacy. But critics argue the latest controversy reveals just how deeply ideological activism has seeped into institutions that are supposed to remain neutral.
The backlash became so intense earlier this year that the FJC ultimately retracted the climate science section from its Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence after lawmakers and legal watchdogs raised alarms over the political bias embedded throughout the material.
And once people started looking into the authors behind the guide, the concerns only grew larger.
According to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine — which co-authored the manual and still hosts the climate section online — the guide was written by Jessica Wentz and Radley Horton, both connected to Columbia University’s climate institutions.
Wentz serves as a senior fellow at Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, while Horton is a professor at Columbia’s Climate School.
Critics say the issue isn’t simply that the authors support climate policies. The concern is whether openly ideological activists should be helping shape educational materials used by federal judges deciding politically charged cases involving energy companies, environmental regulations, and massive economic consequences for the American people.
And Jessica Wentz’s own public statements are now drawing major attention.
According to reports, Wentz posted on social media in 2022 about collaborating on a project exploring how plaintiffs could establish legal links between so-called “climate disinformation” and climate-related “damages” in lawsuits against fossil fuel companies.
That term — “disinformation” — has become one of the Left’s favorite political weapons in recent years, often used to label dissenting opinions or justify censorship campaigns against people who question progressive narratives.
Wentz reportedly celebrated participating in projects focused on holding what activists describe as “corporate purveyors of disinformation” accountable for their alleged role in climate debates.
One event she promoted was even titled “Accountability for the Deception Industry,” featuring discussions about how companies accused of spreading climate “deception” could face legal consequences.
In other words, the same activist circles pushing lawsuits against energy companies and labeling disagreement as “disinformation” were simultaneously helping craft materials designed to guide federal judges handling those very kinds of cases.
And Americans are supposed to believe that’s completely unbiased?
The controversy has reignited broader concerns among conservatives about ideological capture inside universities, federal institutions, and legal organizations that increasingly blur the line between objective analysis and political activism.
Critics argue that federal judges deserve genuinely neutral scientific resources — not materials influenced by activists with publicly stated political goals tied directly to ongoing litigation and policy battles.
The situation also highlights growing concerns about how climate politics are increasingly being used not just to shape policy, but to influence courts, regulate speech, pressure corporations, and marginalize dissenting viewpoints.
For years, many conservatives warned that activist movements were slowly embedding themselves into major institutions under the banner of “expertise.” This latest controversy is exactly why those warnings matter.
At the end of the day, Americans expect the judicial system to operate independently, fairly, and free from ideological manipulation. And while the climate debate will undoubtedly continue, one thing is becoming crystal clear: voters are paying much closer attention to who is shaping the institutions that shape the country.
