Montana—A coalition of 23 state attorneys general is calling on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin to withdraw funding from the Environmental Law Institute (ELI), a nonprofit group involved in climate-related legal training. The effort, led by Montana’s Attorney General Austin Knudsen, includes support from various GOP officials across multiple states, highlighting a growing concern among these officials about federal financial connections to climate initiatives.

In a letter addressed to Zeldin, the attorneys general pointed out that a significant portion of ELI’s funding—approximately 13% in 2023 and projected at 8.4% in 2024—comes from EPA grants. They expressed particular apprehension regarding the institute’s Climate Judiciary Project, which the group claims has conducted more than 50 events and trained over 2,000 judges in environmental law.

Critics, including representatives from the American Energy Institute, allege that the Climate Judiciary Project unduly influences judicial outcomes in favor of climate litigation. They argue that the project promotes a biased agenda that undermines legal integrity, labeling the materials provided to judges as a “playbook” aimed at favoring plaintiffs in climate-related cases against traditional energy sectors.

The attorneys general emphasized that state consumer protection laws mandate transparency and accuracy in marketing practices. They contend that ELI misrepresents its training programs as neutral and objective, raising concerns about the impact on public perception and the legal system. “State attorneys general have a duty to guard against misleading claims that affect consumers,” they wrote.

The letter further urged the EPA to cease any ongoing grants to ELI and to prevent future funding while the Climate Judiciary Project is operational. This call for action reflects a broader trend of skepticism towards federal climate policies among several state leaders, who argue that such initiatives can adversely affect local economies and jobs, particularly in traditional energy sectors.

Supporters of ELI counter that such training is essential for judges to understand the complexities of climate science and legal frameworks surrounding environmental issues. They argue that informed decision-making is key to navigating cases that increasingly involve climate impacts.

As debates over climate policy continue to polarize opinions, the push by these attorneys general raises significant questions about the role of federal funding in shaping environmental law and its implications for judicial impartiality. The outcome of this initiative could have lasting effects on both climate litigation and the future of environmental protections in the United States.