FIRST ON FOX: A government watchdog group is pursuing a new possible paper trail to find out who is funding climate presentations for judges, filing public records requests for financial information that could reveal how outside advocacy groups influenced the presentations.

Government Accountability & Oversight (GAO), a nonprofit, made recent Freedom of Information Act requests, reviewed by Fox News Digital, for emails and financial records held by the Treasury Department that GAO says could show whether funds connected to the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) moved through the Federal Judicial Center Foundation. 

The effort comes as Republican lawmakers and legal critics scrutinize whether the seminars exposed judges to one-sided climate presentations from figures they say are connected to the broader plaintiffs-side climate litigation network, raising concerns about whether the programs created an appearance of partiality for judges who could later hear related lawsuits.

CLIMATE JUSTICE GROUP HAS DEEP TIES TO JUDGES, EXPERTS INVOLVED IN LITIGATION AMID CLAIMS OF IMPARTIALITY

The FOIA requests were significant, GAO legal counsel Chris Horner told Fox News Digital, because they opened up a new path for his group and congressional investigators to pursue as they probe what role the Federal Judicial Center, which is a research arm of the taxpayer-funded judicial branch, had in hosting the seminars.

While it is not necessarily subject to FOIA requests, Horner said that records belonging to the Federal Judicial Center Foundation, created by Congress as a 501c1, are public. That means the foundation, which is authorized to take donor money to support events, should have a public paper trail, Horner said.

Fox News Digital reviewed ELI’s tax records, including 990 forms beginning in 2019, which showed multimillion-dollar lump sums designated, in part, for educating judges. Horner said his group was looking to understand the «mechanics» behind that funding.

«Judges are getting from the courtroom to the resort. How does that happen?» Horner asked, questioning if the Federal Judicial Center, a public, impartial entity, was improperly using ELI’s money to facilitate judges’ attendance at the controversial seminars.

The seminars at issue were climate-related judicial education programs involving the Federal Judicial Center and ELI’s Climate Judiciary Project, which ELI launched in 2018 to provide judges with instruction on climate science, climate impacts and climate-related litigation. 

The Federal Judicial Center previously told Fox News Digital it held a series of small, one-day seminars with ELI for fewer than 100 judges in 2019 and early 2020, before the programs became the subject of scrutiny from Republican lawmakers, conservative legal critics and energy industry advocates. The Federal Judicial Center said last year it stopped working with ELI in 2020. Fox News Digital reached out to ELI and the Federal Judicial Center for comment on the current status of the seminars.

Nick Collins, an ELI spokesperson, said in a statement that ELI’s climate project began because courts were seeking out education on the topic. He denied that the project had ties to current climate litigation that judges might be presiding over.

«[The Climate Judiciary Project] partners with leading educational institutions to provide those courses which are no different than other judicial education programs providing training on legal and scientific topics that judges voluntarily choose to attend,» Collins said. «CJP does not participate in litigation, coordinate with parties related to any litigation, or advise judges on how they should rule on any issue or in any case.»

GAO argued in its FOIA requests that the Federal Judicial Center Foundation is a government agency and that the statute that established the foundation authorized it to maintain a fund with the Treasury, where all the foundation’s donations could be held. GAO said the public should have access to those account statements showing deposits and disbursements.

The FOIA requests targeted records spanning multiple years, including the potential Treasury-held data dating back to 2015, as well as records from 2019 to 2021 tied to the climate seminars specifically.

The requests did not establish that any funds were improperly used, but GAO said the records could clarify how outside money was handled by a public institution.

Horner called it a «big gap in the stone wall,» referencing what he viewed as an opening to learn more about what has long been a murky understanding of financial ties between the Federal Judicial Center and private entities helping to bring the climate lawsuits.

Horner noted ELI’s well-documented connections to plaintiffs who have brought numerous lawsuits against major oil companies like Shell, BP and ExxonMobil in the name of addressing climate change.

«The judiciary has been caught in bed with the plaintiffs, and the judiciary apparently wants to hide the evidence rather than be transparent about it, which certainly does not inspire confidence,» Horner said.

MAJOR ‘CLIMATE DECEPTION’ LAWSUIT AGAINST BIG OIL VOLUNTARILY DISMISSED

AUSTIN, TEXAS – AUGUST 05: An Exxon gas station is seen on August 05, 2024 in Austin, Texas. (Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images)  (Brandon Bell)

ELI is connected to litigators involved in the uptick in recent years in the lawsuits against oil companies, including through its former board member Ann Carlson. ELI’s Climate Judiciary Project maintains that it is a «neutral, objective» resource for judges, but its curriculum has been fossil fuel-averse. The Climate Judiciary Project educates the very judges who could end up presiding over cases against the oil companies.

ELI «intends to accomplish via the courts what it cannot get enacted into law: a radical environmental agenda,» Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, alleged in a 2024 letter.

GAO lawyers argued in their FOIA requests that the foundation’s financial information was of great public interest because judges were effectively being lobbied on how to handle climate cases through these seminars, and the foundation could have had a role in funding them.

«These seminars were arranged by parties affiliated with the plaintiffs’ legal team yet presented as the objective background which judges should know about climate science,» the GAO lawyers wrote in the FOIA requests. «The Federal Judicial Center Foundation is authorized to accept gifts to underwrite such seminars.»

Sen. Ted Cruz speaks during a roundtable discussion at the U.S. Capitol on March 3, 2025, in Washington, DC. (Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

Critics like Cruz and GAO have long contended that the seminars were not neutral and instead part of a broader climate litigation ecosystem. Judges attending seminars on any given topic would normally be a nonissue, but the concerns have zeroed in on who may be influencing the judges and whether they are part of the same network advancing the climate lawsuits.

Like GAO, Congress has been probing the financials as part of its oversight of the judicial branch. In January, the House Judiciary Committee said ELI, and its Climate Judiciary Project, appeared to target judges in jurisdictions where climate cases would be heard. The letter noted that ELI has said its Climate Judiciary Project began in 2018 «in coordination with» the Federal Judicial Center.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

GAO’s FOIA letters signal that the Federal Judicial Center Foundation could be a missing link in understanding who paid for the seminars and how the Federal Judicial Center was involved with the privately funded programs, which lawmakers say could be at odds with policies that the U.S. courts are required to follow.

Fox News Digital reached out to Carlson, as well as the Federal Judicial Center, the Federal Judicial Center Foundation and the Treasury Department for comment on the FOIA requests.

The U.S. military conducted a strike on a vessel in the Caribbean tied to suspected drug trafficking operations, killing two people, U.S. Southern Command said.

In a post on X, U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) said Joint Task Force Southern Spear carried out a «lethal kinetic strike» on May 4 at the direction of commander Gen. Francis L. Donovan.

CRUISE SHIP PASSENGER DESCRIBES UNCERTAINTY AFTER 3 DEATHS AMID HANTAVIRUS PROBE

The command said intelligence assessed the vessel was transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Caribbean and allegedly engaged in drug trafficking operations. It added that the vessel was operated by what officials described as designated terrorist organizations.

U.S. forces carried out a strike on a suspected drug-trafficking vessel in the Eastern Pacific, killing two individuals, officials said. (U.S. Southern Command)

Two male suspected «narco-terrorists» were killed in the strike, and no U.S. military personnel were harmed, according to the statement.

The strike is part of an ongoing campaign targeting suspected drug-trafficking vessels in Latin American waters that has continued since early September and has killed at least 188 people in total. Other strikes have taken place in the eastern Pacific Ocean.

The U.S. conducted a lethal kinetic strike on an alleged drug trafficking vessel in the Eastern Pacific on April 15, 2026, killing three suspected narco-terrorists, U.S. Southern Command said. (U.S. Southern Command)

The operations have ramped up again in recent weeks, even as the U.S. remains engaged in conflict with Iran, according to officials and prior military statements.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

U.S. officials have described the effort as part of a broader campaign against what the administration calls «narcoterrorism» in the Western Hemisphere.

El empresario hotelero italiano Giuseppe Cipriani, radicado en Punta del Este, ha estado en los últimos días en el centro de la atención luego de que el proceso de adopción de uno de sus hijos comenzara a ser investigado. El caso se reabrió la semana pasada, cuando se difundió el caso que se convirtió en un escándalo que destapó una adopción opaca en Uruguay.

Nicole Minetti, de 41 años, fue condenada en Italia a tres años y once meses de prisión acusada de favorecer la prostitución y el desvíos de fondos públicos como consejera en Lombardía. Sin embargo, esta mujer –una figura central del ecosistema de poder de Silvio Berlusconi– fue indultada por el presidente Sergio Mattarella, que alegó razones humanitarias.

Las “razones humanitarias” que terminaron derivando en su indulto fue que Minetti debía cuidar de un hijo adoptivo menor de edad con “graves patologías” que requería tratamientos costosos en el extranjero.

El caso motivó una investigación sobre cómo le fue otorgada la adopción a Minetti y Cipriani y el empresario italiano decidió hablar esta semana, con el diario de su país Corriere Della Sera.

El empresario contó que este caso ha “destrozado” a su pareja, a quien definió como una “madre fantástica”, y negó las noticias que se han difundido en Italia sobre él. Dijo que es “todo” falso: “Empezando por la adopción, que ellos llaman ilegal. Tardamos casi cuatro años en seguir el procedimiento: jueces, trabajadores sociales, psicólogos… Uruguay no es un país bananero; es un lugar serio donde las cosas se hacen con seriedad. Y el dinero es inútil; de hecho, es un país socialistas; ciertas cosas no se pueden comprar”.

Cipriani señaló que volvería a adoptar un niño. Y, de hecho, informó que es una posibilidad. “Nicole y yo estamos pensando en adoptar otro niño, también aquí en Uruguay. Todavía no hemos finalizado los trámites. Esperemos que las cosas se calmen”, dijo.

El magnate italiano –que remodela el histórico hotel San Rafael en Punta del Este– señaló que la difusión de su caso significa una “bajeza” y dijo que es “insostenible” lo que se ha publicado.

“Es una locura: se ignora la privacidad de un niño, la privacidad familiar… Creo que tendremos que sacar conclusiones y tomar medidas una vez que las cosas se calmen. Buscaremos una indemnización. Informar de las noticias está bien, pero aquí estamos gritando al viento sobre cosas que no existen”, aseguró.

Al ser consultado sobre lo exhaustivas que eran las investigaciones periodísticas, Cipriani dijo que “bastaba con mirar” los documentos presentados en Uruguay para saber que la adopción se trataba “simplemente de un acto de amor”. “De un acto de amor surgió algo que no tiene absolutamente ningún sentido”, señaló.

El caso trata de un menor nacido a fines de 2017, en un entorno de extrema pobreza. Su madre es María de los Ángeles González Colinet, una mujer que ahora está desaparecida y es buscada por la Policía como persona ausente. En 2018, la justicia uruguaya lo confió al Instituto del Niño y Adolescente del Uruguay (INAU) con el mandato de intentar el revínculo con su familia biológica. Fue en ese momento cuando Minetti y Cipriani aparecieron en la vida del menor.

Cipriani defendió que su pareja no tenía que ir a prisión. “Ella debía supervisar personalmente a su hijo: si le hubieran concedido la libertad condicional, no habría podido viajar al extranjero ni estar con él. Creo que fue algo fantástico: un acto de amor del presidente Mattarella, quien comprendió la situación a la perfección y, por ello, concedió el indulto”.

Cipriani contó que su hijo tiene que viajar cada seis meses a Boston para revisiones, algo que se mantendrá hasta que cumpla 18 años.