Saturday, July 5, 2025
Home Blog Page 7

Pride goeth before the fall: Court rules parents can opt their kids out of schools’ LGBTQ+ lessons

As Pride Month celebrations of all things gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer, come to a close, the US Supreme Court ruled that Maryland parents may indeed proceed with a lawsuit seeking to opt their children out of public school lessons that include LGBTQ-themed content.

In a 6-3 decision, the Court sent the case back to the lower courts, effectively allowing the parents’ claims under the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedoms to move forward.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority that the parents in the case “have shown that they are entitled to a preliminary injunction” and “are likely to succeed in their challenge to the Board’s policies.”

Alito wrote, “A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill. And a government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on parents’ acceptance of such instruction.”

The ruling is not the final decision in the matter, as the case will head back to the lower courts for further review. 

As far as Alaska is concerned, when Gov. Mike Dunleavy was a senator, he and Rep. Wes Keller got a similar but more expansive law put on the books. What the Supreme Court said today was appropriate has been on the books in Alaska for roughly 10 years. See that statute at this Justia.com link.

The parents who brought the case to the Supreme Court are of Christian and Muslim religious backgrounds. They argued that mandatory participation in lessons and storybooks featuring same-sex couples and gender identity discussions violated their constitutional rights to direct the religious upbringing of their children.

The case centers on a policy adopted by Montgomery County Public Schools in 2022, which introduced a set of books designed to promote inclusivity and diversity beginning in pre-kindergarten.

Then, the district removed an opt-out provision that had initially been offered to parents, prompting legal challenges from families who said the curriculum conflicted with their religious beliefs.

The parents’ case had been dismissed by a lower court, which said that they had not shown their children were being forced to affirm beliefs they disagreed with.

However, the Supreme Court disagrees with that reasoning, finding that the parents had presented a plausible claim that deserved further review under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

The Court did not decide the underlying question of whether the school district’s actions were unconstitutional but emphasized the importance of giving parents their day in court. The ruling reflects a growing judicial emphasis on protecting religious liberty in education-related cases.

The Montgomery County school district has argued that the books are part of a broader effort to create a welcoming environment for all students and that the curriculum is age-appropriate and aligned with state educational standards.

Friday’s ruling is expected to influence how school districts nationwide handle opt-out requests and religious objections to classroom materials involving topics of gender and sexuality. It also highlights the ongoing legal tension between anti-discrimination efforts in public education and the rights of families with traditional or faith-based beliefs.

Kevin McCabe: Senate Bill 183 wasn’t about transparency — it was about political targeting

By REP. KEVIN MCCABE

In Alaska, where oil and gas taxes are the lifeblood of our economy, you’d think we’d all agree on one thing, making sure we’re getting every dollar we’re owed from our oil. But what should be a straightforward process of oversight and accountability has spiraled into a mess of finger-pointing, political theater, and constitutional overreach.

The ongoing dispute between the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee and the Department of Revenue over oil and gas audit data didn’t start yesterday, and it won’t end with a signature on a bill like SB183. We don’t need more bureaucracy and bills. We need clear communication, mutual respect, and common sense.

This issue didn’t appear out of thin air. It started to heat up in 2019, under former Representative Chris Tuck’s leadership of LB&A. Back then, Legislative Auditor Kris Curtis started raising red flags about Revenue’s provision of audit data. And some staffers, former employees of Gov. Bill Walker, exacerbated the issue; insisting that, instead of clean, formatted reports, the department was handing over raw data files that made analysis difficult.

The 2020 audit ended with a “qualified opinion,” meaning auditors couldn’t verify everything they needed to, because the data was, in their opinion, a mess. Nobody wants to go back to the bad old days of under-collected taxes, but we can’t ignore the reality either: the shift in how data is delivered came about during a time of intense DOR staff turnover, increasing workloads, and a global pandemic. While that’s not an excuse, it does provide context.

SB183, the bill introduced earlier this year to mandate what the auditor desired in formatted audit data from DOR, passed the House and Senate. I voted against it, not because I don’t support transparency or accountability, but because I saw it for what it was: a politically motivated attempt to pin blame on a commissioner who’s become a convenient target. Let’s not pretend otherwise. When you see Democrat senators leading the charge against Gov. Dunleavy’s administration; and when his Commissioner of Revenue, Adam Crum, is being floated as a potential gubernatorial candidate in 2026, it’s hard to ignore the political undertones. That’s not governing, it’s elevating a minor situation into a manufactured crisis and using it as a political opportunity to discredit someone.

Between 2006 and 2011, settlements stemming from audits brought in over $1.3 billion. But between 2020 and 2024, settlement revenues dropped off a cliff, from $281 million to just $3.1 million. That’s not just a number; that’s money that could fund schools, public safety, and infrastructure. Certainly part of that decline, even a large part, may be due to improved compliance by oil companies. But part of it is also due to how difficult it has apparently become for process auditors to analyze tax data effectively when they’re sifting through a haystack looking for needles. And that’s a legitimate concern.

The part conveniently ignored by critics of the administration, is that the Department of Revenue has provided data. In fact, according to Crum’s May 8 letter and formal response, Revenue gave the LB&A Excel files containing everything from taxpayer names to tax years, posting dates, and amounts. The issue isn’t that Revenue is withholding information, it’s that it isn’t formatted to the auditors’ liking. That’s not obstruction; that’s a formatting dispute, and possibly the difference between a process audit and a tax audit.

And let’s not forget the constitutional issues here. SB183 would have allowed the legislative auditor to compel the executive branch to deliver work products in a specific format, under threat of fines. That’s a dangerous precedent which violates the separation of powers enshrined in Alaska’s Constitution. The Governor was absolutely right to veto it. We cannot, and should not, allow one branch of government to dictate the internal operations of another.

Commissioner Crum’s absence from a key hearing was angrily criticized by some in the House Rules Committee hearing. But the reality is that he was attending a legally mandated State Investment Review Meeting to help oversee billions in state assets, including the Alaska Permanent Fund. So it was a scheduling conflict, not a conspiracy. Add in Gov. Dunleavy’s directive for executive branch officials to avoid Juneau during the final days of session and we all see the political picture. If we’re going to accuse someone of obstruction, let’s make sure we’ve exhausted every other reasonable explanation first.

SB183 sought to punish, rather than partner with, a department. There must be a better path forward – a path that respects both branches of government and gets the job done without politics and divisiveness.

  • First, we could establish a joint oversight committee made up of LB&A and Revenue staff. Together, they could create mutually agreed-upon data standards that make life easier for everyone. 
  • Second, negotiating a memorandum of understanding could lay out expectations for what data is provided, when, and in what format; no threats, no fines, just professionalism. 
  • Third, we could bring in a third-party auditor to look at Revenue’s internal processes and suggest improvements. This isn’t about finger-pointing, it’s about getting to the truth.
  • Fourth, we need a statutory fix that clarifies LB&A’s oversight authority without crossing into executive territory. 
  • And finally, we need to support Revenue with funding and training to manage its data systems and reduce staff turnover.

These aren’t radical ideas. They’re common-sense steps, grounded in the principles of cooperative governance. Let’s remember: the LB&A process auditor can already access raw data. Revenue isn’t hiding anything. The issue is about how that data is delivered and interpreted. That’s a solvable problem if we stop using it as a political football.

As we look ahead to 2026, with the governor’s race already casting a long shadow over every policy debate in Juneau, we must resist the temptation to politicize every disagreement. SB183 may have had good intentions, but it was the wrong tool for the job. We don’t need more laws and bureaucracy, we need more cooperation.

Alaskans deserve a government that works, not one that’s constantly at war with itself. Let’s get back to the table, roll up our sleeves, and solve this problem the Alaskan way — together!

Rep. Kevin McCabe serves in the Legislature on behalf of District 30, Big Lake.

Governor vetoes rural teacher housing bill

Gov. Mike Dunleavy has vetoed House Bill 174, a measure passed by the Alaska Legislature that aimed to expand access to construction and maintenance funding for Mt. Edgecumbe High School and rural teacher housing across the state.

The bill comes at a time when state fiscal resources are scarce. HB 174 sought to broaden the scope of the Regional Education Attendance Area and Small Municipal School District School Fund (REAA Fund), which was originally established to support rural school construction and later expanded to include major maintenance. HB 174 would have made two major changes:

  1. Inclusion of Mt. Edgecumbe High School as an eligible recipient for construction and maintenance grants from the REAA Fund.
  2. Expansion of funding eligibility to include state-owned rural teacher housing, allowing maintenance grants to support residential facilities for educators in underserved school districts.

In his veto statement, Dunleavy said the bill fundamentally altered the purpose and structure of the REAA Fund. “HB 174 would transform the REAA Fund … by adding Mt. Edgecumbe High School, and for the first time teacher-housing maintenance, a cost traditionally paid by local communities,” he wrote.

He added that the bill “diminished the equity across school districts that is provided by the Fund and commits the state to a local housing obligation, diverting already scarce dollars away from the critical classroom repairs and complicating grant rankings.”

The measure also removed the REAA Fund’s $70 million statutory cap, allowing unrestricted general funds to accumulate in the account without deadlines for project implementation. That change, according to the governor, could lead to delayed spending and create long-term financial commitments for the state.

In addition to the fiscal policy concerns, the Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) estimated the bill would require over $300,000 annually in new costs. The expansion of eligible projects would necessitate two new state positions — a school finance specialist and a building management specialist — and annual travel throughout the state for technical support.

Dunleavy’s veto is part of his administration’s resistance to expanding the state’s role in what he views as local responsibilities, especially amid broader concerns about Alaska’s fiscal sustainability.

Murkowski listed as “Undeclared” in state voter records, but her staff says she’s Republican

A curious change in Alaska’s official voter registration database has sparked questions about the party affiliation of US Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who has long had a complicated relationship with the Republican Party.

The confusion began when Alaska Public Media reporter Wesley Early tweeted a screenshot showing that Murkowski was registered as “Undeclared” in the Alaska voter registration system.

He later deleted the tweet after a staffer from Murkowski’s office contacted him, saying the senator was unaware of the change and insisted she is still a registered Republican.

But when contacted by this publication, the Alaska Division of Elections confirmed that Murkowski is, in fact, listed as “Undeclared” in their system, just as it was when the reporter accessed the information. Division officials acknowledged the discrepancy but could not provide an immediate explanation for how it was changed.

Update: Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher issued a statement: “The Division of Elections was notified on Thursday afternoon that the voter affiliation for Senator Lisa Murkowski was listed as ‘undeclared’.  Upon further review, it was determined this was the result of a data entry error by a temporary worker in the August 2024 primary when the affiliation was left blank on her absentee ballot, and the worker mistakenly listed the Senator as undeclared instead of leaving her correct affiliation of Republican. The error has been corrected.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s voter registration at Alaska Division of Elections on June 26, 2025.

There’s no record showing a party affiliation change, one official told us. When individuals apply for the Permanent Fund Dividend, their voter registration status is updated based on selections made during the PFD application process. But no such data shows that such a change was made.

State officials confirmed they are looking into the matter to determine how the change may have occurred, but as of Wednesday, they were just learning about the matter.

The incident has raised eyebrows, particularly given Murkowski’s increasingly strained standing within the Republican Party. She was censured by the Alaska Republican Party in 2021 following her vote to convict former President Donald Trump during his second impeachment trial and has faced criticism from the party’s main flank ever since.

Murkowski just launched her new book, “Far From Home,” a political memoir of her rise in politics. She has been interviewed widely in the media as part of the book launch, and will not rule out leaving the Republican Party and caucusing with Democrats.

The Division of Elections says it will investigate the situation to understand whether the change was due to a system error, a PFD-linked update, or another cause.

Until then, the episode remains another moment of political ambiguity for Alaska’s senior senator.

Win Gruening: Homeless, not helpless, Part 2

By WIN GRUENING

In January, 2017, I penned a Must Read Alaska column defending then-Mayor Koelsch’s sponsorship of an anti-camping ordinance needed to address public health and safety concerns caused by a growing homeless population downtown.

Prior to that, I had written a column supporting Housing First in their effort to raise awareness and funding for a housing solution for the chronically homeless in Juneau. Since 2015, tens of millions of dollars have been spent under that program and almost 100 permanent housing units for the homeless have been built or are slated for construction in Juneau.

Similar projects have been constructed in Anchorage and Fairbanks.

Much has happened since then, but the homeless challenge remains, and, some would argue, it has gotten even worse. Going forward, is it time to consider a different approach?

Juneau is not alone in tackling this dilemma. San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle, come to mind as cities that have poured billions of dollars into non-profit entities that have offered housing, counseling, treatment programs, and endless studies. 

City police forces have been overwhelmed by so many citizen complaints of panhandling and shoplifting that many calls go unanswered. Downtown areas that were once thriving office centers and shopping meccas are now largely deserted at night, beset by crime, rampant drug use, and public disturbances.

Due to safety concerns, Microsoft, the crown jewel of Seattle’s business community, recently canceled a nation-wide conference in Seattle that hosts over 4,500 attendees and would have given the city an economic boost in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

In Alaska, Anchorage continues to make headlines with its homeless problems that to some have reached crisis proportions. Recently, after the police cleared a massive homeless encampment in a public park, vagrants there set multiple fires in protest.

In Juneau, a similar action to clear unlawful camping on public property didn’t result in violence. But the action was necessary to address the enormous amount of trash being generated, open drug use, vandalism, and generally unsafe conditions prevalent in the camp and nearby neighborhood.

Some blame the increase in homeless problems on the decriminalization of petty crime and drugs as well as lax law enforcement. This is unfair to our police who don’t make those decisions but are forced to deal with the impacts of policies enacted by elected officials.

Juneau’s primary emergency shelter and soup kitchen, the Glory Hall (now located in the Mendenhall Valley) is also sometimes unfairly blamed. It has provided meals and other critical services to the homeless since 1981. It operates as a nonprofit organization, relying on community donations and grants. While homeless individuals tend to congregate around the Glory Hall facility, anyone under the influence of drugs or alcohol is not eligible to utilize their services.

The homeless deserve compassion and may be homeless due to circumstances beyond their control. But they are not helpless and must be willing to respect municipal and private property and not be a threat to the general public.

What seems clear is that just providing housing and throwing more money at some of the same solutions hasn’t worked.

Certain states have already reached that conclusion and have begun channeling funding away from subsidized housing programs like Housing First. These states believe that programs where recipients aren’t held accountable don’t get results.

Housing First serves chronically homeless individuals who are high utilizers of emergency and public safety services. They are offered permanent housing but are not required to be sober or participate in treatment to qualify. Instead, the model uses a harm reduction approach, offering optional on-site services such as medical care, counseling, and substance use treatment.

Initially, this approach did take homeless people off the street. But with Juneau’s population declining, why is the community’s homeless population increasing? Are individuals coming from other towns in Southeast that lack homeless services? Are the community’s generous and compassionate programs turning into magnets?

Florida, Georgia, and Utah, for example, are now taking steps to fund policies built on rehabilitation and behavioral health treatment, aiming to free the homeless from government support. More states are now opting for transitional housing and other treatment-oriented programs.

Perhaps it’s time for Juneau and other communities in Alaska to focus their efforts there.

After retiring as the senior vice president in charge of business banking for Key Bank in Alaska, Win Gruening became a regular opinion page columnist for the Juneau Empire. He was born and raised in Juneau and graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1970. He is involved in various local and statewide organizations.

Video: Hegseth blasts reporters over biased Iran strike coverage: ‘Get a big shovel’

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth took direct aim at major media outlets during a forceful appearance at the NATO Summit, accusing reporters of downplaying and poor-mouthing the US military’s strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. He called them out for their anti-Trump bias.

Standing before a global press corps at a Pentagon briefing connected to the summit, Hegseth lashed out at CNN, The New York Times, and other outlets for what he described as manipulative reporting.

The criticism centered on leaked excerpts of a preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency assessment suggesting the strikes may have only delayed Iran’s nuclear ambitions by several months.

“Yeah, there’s a reason the president calls out fake news for what it is,” Hegseth said, dismissing the coverage as irresponsible and politically motivated. “The instinct of CNN, the New York Times, is to spin it, to try to hurt President Trump or our country.”

“I’m looking at [the DIA report] right now … it was preliminary, a day and a half after the actual strike … There’s low confidence in this particular report. How about the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission? ‘The devastating US strikes on Fordow destroyed the site’s critical infrastructure and rendered the enrichment facility inoperable.’ Here’s the head of the UN Atomic Energy Agency this morning, Rafael Grossi: ‘US and Israeli strikes caused enormous damage to Iran’s nuclear sites.’ The IDF’s Chief of Staff: ‘We significantly damaged the nuclear program, setting it back by years. I repeat — years,'” Hegseth said.

Hegseth, whose nomination as Defense Secretary was opposed by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, praised the military operation as a high-risk, high-reward success, criticizing the media for what he called a failure to acknowledge the mission’s scale and significance.

“These pilots, these refuelers, these fighters, these air defenders. The skill and courage it took to go into enemy territory, flying 36 hours on behalf of the American people and the world to take out a nuclear program is beyond what anyone in this audience can fathom,” Hegseth said.

Rather than celebrating the achievement, Hegseth pointed out, looking reporters in the eye, the reporters chose to focus on anonymous assessments and leaks that minimized the outcome.

“Because you, and I mean specifically you — the press corps — you cheer against Trump so hard, it’s like it’s in your DNA. You have to hope maybe they weren’t effective. Maybe the way the Trump administration has represented them isn’t true. So let’s take half truths, spun information, leaked information, and then spin it. Spin it in every way we can to try to cause doubt and manipulate the mind the public mind over whether or not our brave pilots were successful.”

Citing evidence from post-strike assessments, Hegseth said the 12 so-called “bunker buster” bombs had destroyed key infrastructure at Iran’s Fordow enrichment facility. The results, he claimed, were conclusive.

“All of the evidence of what was just bombed by twelve 30,000-pound bombs is buried under a mountain — devastated and obliterated,” he said.

Then, closing his remarks with a line that quickly made headlines, he added: “If you want to make an assessment of what happened at Fordow, you better get a big shovel and go really deep — because Iran’s nuclear program is obliterated.”

The Pentagon has not released a full after-action report on the operation, but officials confirmed it involved dozens of aircraft and coordination across multiple allied nations.

Hegseth’s message was that the mission was a success, and the media refuses to admit it.

Watch the video of the press conference at this link.

Fairbanks assemblyman proposes amendments to ethics ordinance to reduce complaints

In response to what he described as a growing misuse of the ethics complaint process, Assemblyman Scott Crass has introduced an ordinance that would significantly amend the Fairbanks North Star Borough’s ethics code.

The proposed changes, scheduled for the Assembly’s Thursday, June 26 meeting, would streamline complaint procedures, deter politically motivated filings, and clarify ethical expectations for public officials, particularly when the Assembly is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. Recent ethics trainings and case reviews have revealed ambiguities in the current code and highlighted the need to clarify violations and codify standards for impartiality, Crass’s ordinance says.

Crass was involved in an ethics hearing concerning a former Assembly member Savannah Fletcher. During that hearing, Crass declared a conflict of interest due to a $136 donation to Fletcher’s state Senate campaign and because his wife and Fletcher served together on the HopeLink shelter board. He also stated he didn’t think he could fairly evaluate the concerns raised by complainant Rita Trommeter, leading to his recusal from the hearing.

His ordinance notes a rise in what it characterizes as “de minimis or purely technical violations,” that are filed not for oversight but as political grandstanding. Crass’s proposal would give the Borough’s Board of Ethics explicit authority to summarily dismiss complaints that are frivolous, harmless, self-reported, or duplicative.

One of the most consequential additions is the creation of a new initial screening process for ethics complaints. Under the ordinance, the Borough Clerk would be given the power to conduct an initial review to determine whether the complaint meets the legal standards and falls within the board’s jurisdiction.

The Board of Ethics would then have 30 days to conduct its own screening, during which it may dismiss complaints that:

  • Present an existing adequate remedy,
  • Involve only minor or technical violations with no harm,
  • Were self-disclosed within 30 days,
  • Appear to be filed in bad faith, or
  • Are substantially similar to previously reviewed complaints.

Dismissals by the Ethics Board would be final and unappealable, though new complaints could be filed if new evidence emerges or circumstances materially change.

Complainants whose filings are rejected by the Clerk would have a 10-day window to amend and refile their complaints.

A new section — FNSBC 6.08.040 — would codify ethical conduct specifically for when the Assembly functions as a quasi-judicial body, such as during Board of Adjustment hearings. The ordinance mandates that members:

  • Make decisions based only on law and the record,
  • Act without personal or financial bias,
  • Disclose any relevant prior involvement,
  • Reveal disqualifying circumstances, and
  • Flag any potential conflicts of interest that could impair impartiality.

Amendments to existing code seek to tighten regulations on how Assembly members represent the body’s position in public. Members would be barred from misrepresenting themselves as official spokespeople unless specifically authorized, and they must clearly distinguish between personal views and the Assembly’s official stance.

An explicit prohibition on retaliation against ethics complainants or witnesses is also added, defining retaliation to include actions such as harassment, demotion, or denial of benefits.

The proposed ordinance also establishes a new section outlining how penalties will be determined. The Assembly would hold a public hearing to consider the Ethics Board’s findings, hear testimony from both the complainant and respondent, and then determine whether penalties are warranted under existing provisions.

Both parties would be allowed to submit evidence, speak publicly, and respond to each other before the Assembly makes its final decision.

The ordinance reflects a growing concern among local officials about the abuse of the integrity and efficiency of the ethics oversight system.

Planned Parenthood loses at Supreme Court — what it means for Alaska

The US Supreme Court ruled Thursday that states can lawfully exclude Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds, handing a significant win to the pro-life movement and raising new questions about how the decision could affect states like Alaska. The vote was 6-3.

In Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, the justices upheld South Carolina’s decision to disqualify Planned Parenthood from its state Medicaid program.

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said Medicaid recipients do not have the federal right to challenge a state’s decision to deny funding to a particular provider. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joined the opinion. Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the dissent for herself and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The decision may embolden conservative states seeking to block Medicaid funds from reaching providers who aid in the killing of unborn humans through abortion services. It also opens the door for new legal and political challenges at the state level.

In Alaska, the ruling is complicated by the Alaska Supreme Court’s ruling on privacy.

Alaska currently allows Planned Parenthood to receive Medicaid funding for a wide range of services. The state uses funds to pay for what are deemed “medically necessary” abortions for low-income women, as mandated by rulings from the Alaska Supreme Court.

The Hyde Amendment, a federal law passed in 1976, prohibits the use of federal Medicaid funds for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother’s life is endangered. In Alaska, this means federal Medicaid funds cannot be used for most abortions. However, Alaska’s state constitution, as interpreted by court rulings like the 2019 Alaska Supreme Court decision, requires the state to fund “medically necessary” abortions for low-income women through Medicaid using state funds. This allows Planned Parenthood in Alaska to receive state Medicaid funding for abortions beyond the Hyde Amendment’s limited exceptions, covering a broader range of procedures deemed necessary under state law. 

In 2022, Alaska Medicaid funded roughly 43% of the approximately 1,200 abortions performed in the state. Planned Parenthood is the largest abortionist using state-provided Medicaid in Alaska.

With the Supreme Court now backing the rights of states like South Carolina to cut off Medicaid funds to abortion-related providers, it’s unclear whether Alaska’s legal framework, as interpreted by the liberal Alaska Supreme Court, could be challenged, reinterpreted, or targeted in future litigation by carefully crafted legislation.

Although Thursday’s ruling does not directly override Alaska’s state court decisions, it may add pressure to revisit those precedents in light of evolving federal standards.

Cruz: China using Climate activism to undermine US energy independence

By MORGAN SWEENEY

China coordinates with the “radical left” and uses climate activism as a cover to undermine American energy independence, Republicans said at a U.S. Senate committee hearing Wednesday.

Chair of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on federal courts, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-TX, said China has masqueraded behind a feigned concern for climate change to influence American education and legal and political systems through organizations like the Energy Foundation China.

The Energy Foundation China is a nonprofit organization that awards climate research grants to American universities and is also involved in climate strategy events with American lawmakers. According to its website, the foundation “operated jointly with the United States Energy Foundation as a single institution” until 2019, when the institution split into two to “increase operational effectiveness.” Some of its leadership formerly held senior positions in the Chinese government, including its CEO. 

“There is a coordinated assault by the radical left, backed and paid for by the Chinese Communist Party, to seize control of our courts, to weaponize litigation against our energy producers, all in order to undermine American energy dominance,” Cruz said. 

The foundation also has contributed more than $12 million to American environmental advocacy groups, according to Cruz, that lobby for and against legislation and “routinely file lawsuits trying to block pipelines, trying to ban gas-powered vehicles and trying to bankrupt oil and gas companies.”

The campaign is all meant to undermine U.S. energy independence, Cruz said.

“First, foreign money from entities tied to the Chinese Communist Party flows into the United States to bankroll climate advocacy groups who litigate against American energy. Second, activist lawyers flood our courts with lawsuits designed not to win policy debates but to bankrupt energy producers and to dismantle energy infrastructure through sheer attrition,” Cruz said.

Donors to the foundation have also given to the Environmental Law Institute, which houses the Climate Judiciary Project, a group that works to educate the judiciary on climate-related matters – the third “prong” of the “radical left’s” strategy, according to Cruz.

“Third, the judiciary itself is being quietly captured and brainwashed as left wing nonprofits host closed door trainings that indoctrinate judges to adopt the ideological goals of the climate lawfare machine,” Cruz said.

Committee Democrats called Cruz and Republicans’ perspective a conspiracy theory and suggested conservatives are using it as a smokescreen to conceal the fossil fuel industry’s guilt in using the same tactics. 

“The hearing ignores that the fossil fuel industry has for decades benefited from secret funding to wage war on the American consumer by making energy more expensive and dirtier, higher utility bills, worse pollution,” said committee Ranking Member Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-RI, claiming that the fossil fuel industry spends much more on lobbying than environmental groups and also contributes to election campaigns.

Cruz questioned the foundation’s climate activism when China is known to be the world’s leading polluter. 

“If this is truly about reducing emissions, why isn’t China investing that money in reducing its own pollution? China is the number one polluter on planet Earth,” Cruz said.

The Attorney General of Kansas, Kris Kobach, also testified before the committee Wednesday, saying that climate activistists in blue states are setting policy for the entire U.S. 

“There are two new types of litigation we’re seeing just in the last few years. First, we are seeing laws or regulations coming from specific states that are extraterritorial in scope. In other words, the law doesn’t just regulate the state and the residents of that state. It attempts to regulate the whole country,” Kobach said.

Kobach offered California’s clean truck mandate as an example. Though California passed the mandate as a state law, because California has so many ports and is such an essential part of shipping and commercial transportation, the regulation would apply to trucks traveling through the state for “one bit of one day,” Kobach said, that it was a “nationwide rule” that’s in effect. Other states have passed similarly broad-reaching laws, which the Chinese American Planning Council lobbied for. Kobach described the council as “CCP-backed.”

The other kinds of lawsuits are lawsuits where the plaintiffs (perhaps a particular county or city) attempt to represent “the broadly writ health and welfare of the citizens of the state,” which Kobach says “usurps” the role of the state attorneys general. There are 30 such lawsuits against oil and gas companies currently underway across the country, according to Kobach.

While Kobach was reluctant to identify clear “China connections” because his “experience is greatest in the litigation,” he said Congress could help determine how these lawsuits, some of which have been happening for close to a decade without any awarding of damages, are being funded. 

“The money is coming from somewhere. The foundations are getting their money from somewhere. It’s reasonable to ask if China is part of that equation. And I think I would hope that there’d be bipartisan support for disclosing foreign funding of third party litigation,” Kobach said. 

Committee Democrats didn’t delve deeply into whether claims about China’s role in America’s shift away from fossil fuels had merit, but instead said the fossil fuel industry had knowingly hidden the effects of climate change to continue reaping economic gains.

The industry “actively lied and deceived people, spending millions of dollars on a deception campaign to cast doubt on science that the industry itself knew was correct,” according to David Arkush, director of the Public Citizen’s climate program.

Whitehouse said that he is sponsoring a bill that would “end dark money” in political campaigns and that Republicans have voted against it; Cruz challenged that claim and said he had sponsored a bill that would effectively eliminate super PACs and that Democrats had voted against it many times.