Outstanding reviews, a $750k grant, then a cut - he says the timing wasn’t random
A tenured West Point climate scientist says the academy pushed him out for teaching that humans warm the planet - then punished him for objecting.
In a complaint filed August 24, 2026, the professor sued the United States Military Academy in federal court, claiming West Point stripped his tenure, dictated what he could say in class, and refused to renew his job because he taught - and defended teaching - that human activity drives climate change.
According to the filing, he spent more than 17 years teaching climate science at the academy. It describes his performance reviews as outstanding, says he scored top marks on West Point’s evaluation measures, and says he was among the biggest recipients of outside research funding on a faculty where civilians make up about 20% of some 500 members. One grant he led as sole researcher was worth roughly $750,000, the complaint says.
In May 2025, the filing says, his department head told him his job was being eliminated in a reduction in force - essentially a layoff. Only two civilian faculty members were cut, according to the complaint, and he was one of them. His superior said the move had nothing to do with his climate science work. The professor disagreed, and the complaint alleges the real reason was hostility toward the widely accepted science that humans are a major cause of today’s climate change.
Over the summer, the filing says, the academy agreed he could stay on as a “term employee” paid from his own grant money - but only if he gave up his tenured professorship, effective October 1, 2025, and forfeited a large severance package. He accepted.
The restrictions came next. On September 11, 2025, according to the complaint, a program director relayed a verbal order barring professors from teaching that climate change is human-caused and requiring them to remove all mention of human causes from their courses. The filing alleges the guidance came with a warning: go to the media or politicians, and the whole department could be dissolved.
The professor raised ethical and legal objections, the complaint says, but was told, “Adam, you have to teach the course.” He complied. He took his concerns to the inspector general’s office, which the filing calls unhelpful, and to the legal office, which sent him cases it said backed the order; he read them and came away convinced they showed the opposite.
On November 5, 2025, a vice dean turned down his request to get his position back, writing that the department head “is very happy you are still on the team” and that “the decision to cut your position was mission-driven, not performance driven,” according to the complaint. At a department meeting that same day, the professor spoke up, telling the room the directive forced faculty to mislead cadets and that, “right now, I’m a liar and a fraud,” the filing says. The complaint says the dean responded angrily, told him to resign, and walked out.
In May 2026, the professor briefed final grades to his department head and learned his contract would not be renewed past December 2026, the filing says. He held a signed September 2025 term appointment stating it “will be extended subject to the availability of reimbursable funding,” and, according to the complaint, more than a year of grant money still available. The department head allegedly pointed to the professor’s “poor character and temperament” - a criticism the filing says never came up in 17 years of glowing reviews.
For HR leaders, the case turns on familiar decisions seen through an unusual lens: a reduction in force that landed on just two civilians, a switch from tenure to a grant-funded term role with severance given up, and a non-renewal the employer tied to “mission-driven” rather than performance reasons even while praising the worker’s record. The complaint also points to an earlier lawsuit it says challenged similar speech limits at the academy.
The lawsuit says West Point violated the professor’s free-speech and academic-freedom rights under the First Amendment, and alleges the non-renewal was retaliation for his objections.
The allegations have not been tested, and no court has ruled.
