Consumers’ Research
Anti-“ESG” campaign vehicle — Bradley, Searle.
§ 1 · Background & fossil-fuel ties
Consumers’ Research began in 1929 as an early consumer-product testing organization with an early offshoot later becoming Consumer Reports. In 1981, conservative journalist and activist M. Stanton Evans shifted Consumers’ Research into regulatory and public-policy advocacy, including challenging links between tobacco smoke, lung cancer, and heart disease, according to SourceWatch. Consumers’ Research bills itself as an independent nonprofit educational organization fighting “woke” corporations while supporting consumers’ research. In fact, it is an opaque conduit for conservative funders.
Annual revenue from substantial conservative and donor support rose from about $835,000 in 2020 to more than $9 million in 2024 under executive director and free market advocate Will Hild, according to InfluenceWatch. Funders over the years, according to Influence Watch’s review of IRS filings, include DonorsTrust, Donors Capital Fund, Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, National Philanthropic Trust ($2 million from 2020-2024), and Searle Freedom Trust. In 2024, DonorsTrust donated more than $6 million to Consumers’ Research for “general operations,” according to its IRS filing. Between 2020 and 2024, InfluenceWatch reports that DonorsTrust grants totaled about $21 million.
DonorsTrust is a well-known intermediary for conservative funders, including those opposing climate regulation. Consumers’ Research is deeply tied to Leonard Leo, the conservative activist and lawyer known for his influential role in judicial nominations, particularly under Trump. Leo is the backer of coordinated efforts to pass state laws that shield oil and gas companies from legal claims that they are responsible for damages as a result of climate change, according to ProPublica. IRS filings show that Consumers’ Research paid CRC Public Relations, a communications firm for many conservative organizations allied with Leo, more than $676,000 for “digital media” in 2024, and close to $600,000 in 2022 for “legal” services. Leo transformed the business into CRC Advisors that also incubates conservative organizations, coordinates donors, develops litigation strategies, and manages advocacy campaigns. CRC Advisors has coordinated a multimillion-dollar campaign against ESG, an acronym for environmental, social and governance investment and activism practices, coordinating with Marble Freedom Trust, a nonprofit run by Leo, InfluenceWatch reports.
Consumers’ Research has substantial financial links to Leonard Leo’s network. DonorsTrust, which itself received more than $300 million from Leo-linked organizations, including the 85 Fund and Marble Freedom Trust, gave millions to Consumers’ Research. Separately, the Leo-linked Concord Fund gave $940,000 directly to Consumers’ Defense, the lobbying arm of Consumers’ Research.Last year, the news service reported that watchdog groups called for Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito to recuse themselves from a case disputing the regulatory authority of the Federal Communications Commission. Tony Carrk, executive director of Accountable.US, spotlighted “alarmingly close personal and financial ties” between Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito with Leonard Leo, a major backer of one of the parties in the case. Leo reportedly arranged an Alaskan fishing trip involving Alito and billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Singer. Leo himself joined Thomas on a trip to the Adirondacks.
Leo-linked groups have contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to fund Consumers’ Research, according to Courthouse News Service. Last year, the news service reported that watchdog groups called for Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito to recuse themselves from a case disputing the regulatory authority of the Federal Communications Commission. Tony Carrk, executive director of Accountable.US, spotlighted “alarmingly close personal and financial ties” between Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito with Leonard Leo, a major backer of one of the parties in the case. Leo reportedly lavished Alito and Thomas with high-dollar gifts that they never reported on their financial disclosure forms.
§ 2 · Record of fronting
Consumers’ Research established the Center for Energy Innovation and Independence (CEII) in 2013. The center monitors federal environmental regulations and seeds the ground for multi-state litigation against them. According to SourceWatch, CEII worked with former Oklahoma AG Scott Pruitt, filing an amicus brief opposing federal carbon regulations. Consumers’ Research has spent millions attacking Blackrock, Vanguard and other investment managers over their ESG investment policies, arguing that pressure on corporations to cut emissions harms consumers by raising energy prices.
In April 2026, ProPublica reported that Will Hild promoted prewritten state legislation at an American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) conference, making it much harder for cities and states to sue oil and gas companies for climate-related damages. According to ProPublica, this was part of a coordinated strategy involving Consumers’ Research, ALEC, the Alliance for Consumers, and other organizations associated with Leonard Leo.
Consumers’ Research paid Fusion Law Firm over $7 million between 2022 and 2024. Paul Watkins of Fusion Law is a senior fellow at Consumers’ Research and regular speaker at the Federalist Society and ALEC on climate litigation and “woke” capitalism. He has advanced legal strategies shielding oil and gas companies from state-law claims.
Consumers’ Research filed an amicus brief in Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. V. County Commissioners of Boulder County, urging the Supreme Court to hold that federal law preempts state-law claims seeking damages from fossil fuel companies for climate-change related harms, and bars states from using tort litigation to set national climate policy.
§ 3 · The cover story, debunked
Consumers’ Research’s amicus brief argues that climate change is inherently interstate and international, so no single state should be able to regulate it through the courts.
Though climate change is global, states have long used state tort law to seek damages for harms within their borders even when the underlying conduct crossed state or national boundaries. Examples include tobacco, PFAS, and opioid litigation.
Consumers’ Research’s amicus brief argues such lawsuits let states set national climate policy.
Courts routinely decide cases that have nationwide economic consequences without thereby becoming national regulators.
Consumers’ Research’s amicus brief argues that balancing the benefits and costs of fossil fuels is a legislative decision committed to Congress and the federal government, not state courts.
The powers of Congress and the federal government do not erase states’ authority over consumer protection, fraud, public nuisance, property damage and failure to warn claims. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that state tort law survives unless Congress clearly preempts it.
Blackrock pushes policies meant to “hobble” U.S. energy production, causing higher energy costs, inflation and diminished energy infrastructure that is “crushing” consumers and businesses.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration identifies crude oil prices set on the world market as the largest component of retail gasoline prices. Consumers’ Research claims climate-conscious investment has crippled the industry, but the U.S. has been a net total energy exporter since 2019 while its oil and gas production continues at very high levels.
ESG investing by companies such as Vanguard denies capital to fossil-fuel producers, driving up consumer prices.
The IEA estimates that global oil and gas producers received around $4 trillion in income in 2022, around the time of Consumers’ Research claims, with net income from fossil-fuel sales more than doubling relative to recent averages. Lack of access to investment capital due to ESG investing was not a constraint.
Consumers’ Research has claimed that environmental litigation and climate change policy increase dependence on “expensive and unreliable ‘green energy.’”
DOE and its national laboratories have documented that grids can integrate substantial variable renewable generation through a portfolio of reliable operational and infrastructure measures. Renewable resources can also reduce fuel costs and exposure to natural gas price volatility.
Consumers’ Research claims that insurers such as Chubb that restrict coal and oil coverage are improperly “weaponizing” insurance.
Consumers’ Research labels restrictions on fossil-fuel underwriting as strictly ideological. Climate, catastrophe, and transition risks, however, are financially relevant. Insurers are not obligated to underwrite every project, especially if they determine that continued underwriting of high-risk projects can transfer losses to other policyholders through higher premiums or diminished insurer capacity.