RIGHT BIAS
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.
- Under the current administration, Energy.gov has shifted from a historically science-driven resource to a government platform promoting ideologically aligned climate skepticism. Despite its status as an official government website, this political repurposing of climate data and misuse of scientific sources warrants a Right Bias and Mixed Factual rating.
Detailed Report
Bias Rating: RIGHT (6.4)
Factual Reporting: MIXED (5.1)
Country: USA
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Government
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY
History
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is a cabinet-level department of the U.S. federal government, created in 1977. Its mission encompasses energy policy, nuclear safety, and scientific research, and it oversees a network of national laboratories. The DOE maintains multiple offices and divisions, including the Office of Science and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (Leadership Structure).
Traditionally, the agency is expected to maintain scientific integrity and support evidence-based policymaking on energy and climate issues. The content published on Energy.gov reflects the current administration’s priorities and leadership, which under President Donald Trump’s 2025 term includes Secretary of Energy Chris Wright.
Read our profile on the United States media and government.
Funded by / Ownership
The DOE is publicly funded through appropriations from the U.S. Congress. As a government entity, it is taxpayer-supported and accountable to executive and legislative oversight. The site operates under federal jurisdiction and serves as the official communication platform for department initiatives, policy updates, and public reports.
Analysis / Bias
While historically science-aligned, the DOE under the Trump 47 administration has begun promoting narratives at odds with mainstream climate science. A critical shift is seen in the July 29, 2025 report titled “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate.” The report was authored by the department’s 2025 Climate Working Group, which includes long-standing climate skeptics such as John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Roy Spencer, and Ross McKitrick. Several of these individuals have been affiliated with or supported by the Heartland Institute, a fossil fuel–funded think tank known for promoting climate misinformation.
The report downplays the economic and environmental impact of CO₂ emissions and argues that U.S. climate mitigation efforts are ineffectual on a global scale. It frames current climate policy as alarmist and economically detrimental, echoing rhetoric from fossil fuel lobbying groups. Secretary Chris Wright, in releasing the report, stated: “Climate change is real, and it deserves attention. But it is not the greatest threat facing humanity.”
Independent scientists quickly pushed back. According to AFP Fact Check, five leading climate researchers, including Benjamin Santer and Zeke Hausfather, accused the DOE of misrepresenting or cherry-picking their peer-reviewed work to support pre-determined policy goals. Santer stated, “It completely misrepresents my work,” while Hausfather noted selective citation that “neglected to mention how the paper on models also showed how accurate historical climate models have been.” Other researchers, such as Joshua Krissansen-Totton and Bor-Ting Jong, echoed concerns that their studies were taken out of context to cast doubt on well-established climate science.
Although DOE leadership claims the report underwent internal peer review, the cited experts and numerous climate scientists on Bluesky described the document as ideologically driven and lacking rigorous external review. Planetary scientist James Rae called the report “chilling,” and noted it resembled “an undergraduate exercise in misrepresenting climate science.”
Prior to the Trump administration’s return to power, the DOE generally aligned with scientific consensus on climate change and funded clean energy research. This shift marks a significant departure, with DOE now using official channels to amplify views that minimize human-driven climate risks—despite consensus among major scientific institutions that CO₂ emissions are the primary driver of modern climate change.
Failed Fact Checks
- “Wind and solar energy infrastructure is essentially worthless when it is dark outside, and when the wind is not blowing.” – False
- A July 2025 climate report has drawn direct and credible rebukes from numerous scientists whose work was cited. According to AFP, this is the third time in 2025 that the Trump administration has misrepresented scientific research in official reports. These repeated incidents raise serious questions about editorial integrity and scientific accuracy.
Under the current administration, Energy.gov has shifted from a historically science-driven resource to a government platform promoting ideologically aligned climate skepticism. Despite its status as an official government website, this political repurposing of climate data and misuse of scientific sources warrants a Right Bias and Mixed Factual rating. (D. Van Zandt 08/05/2025) Updated (09/10/2025)
Source: https://www.energy.gov/
Last Updated on September 10, 2025 by Media Bias Fact Check
Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.
or
Left vs. Right Bias: How we rate the bias of media sources