A year after California’s plastic recycling fraud lawsuit was announced during Climate Week in New York City, the billionaire Rockefeller network that helped script the case is openly taking credit for it.  

According to new reporting from the Washington Free Beacon, RFF director Lee Wasserman publicly claimed during a NYC Climate Week session that the group’s work led directly to Bonta’s lawsuit.  

Wasserman described how RFF, along with the activist group Beyond Plastics, “worked closely” with the RFF-funded Center for Climate Integrity (CCI) to produce a lengthy report that Bonta’s complaint later relied on, the Free Beacon reports: 

“According to RFF director Lee Wasserman, RFF and activist group Beyond Plastics ‘worked closely’ with the RFF-funded Center for Climate Integrity (CCI) in early 2024 to develop a lengthy first-of-its-kind report outlining how ExxonMobil had allegedly deceived the public about plastic pollution for decades. Wasserman, who made the remarks during a little-noticed Climate Week NYC panel last month, boasted that Bonta then relied on that report when he filed his lawsuit months later in September 2024. 

‘Surprise, surprise—shortly after that report came out, the attorney general of California brought litigation for fraud and deception against Exxon based on their lying about plastic,’ Wasserman remarked at the panel discussion, a transcript of which was reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon.” [emphasis added] 

Except it’s not a surprise at all. We’ve seen this movie before.  

Nearly a decade earlier, the Rockefellers helped bankroll the “ExxonKnew” media campaign that spurred the very first climate deception lawsuit. The Rockefeller philanthropies funded research and reporting at InsideClimate News and Columbia Journalism School/Los Angeles Times, while Lee Wasserman himself privately urged the New York Attorney General to issue the first climate subpoena against the industry.  

California’s plastics case is beginning to mirror that same strategy: fund the research, drive the narrative, and then hand off the blueprint to a “sympathetic” attorney general. 

It took nearly ten years for the full extent of RFF’s behind-the-scenes role in the NYAG’s lawsuit to be exposed through public records and media reporting. That raises an obvious question: how much deeper might their involvement run in California’s plastics suit than they are admitting today?  

Rockefeller Network Recycles Its Playbook with Plastics Litigation 

Rockefeller-backed groups began laying the groundwork long before California’s lawsuit was filed.  

In February 2024, the RFF-funded Center for Climate Integrity (CCI), released the report Wasserman later credited with sparking the case. Around the same time, a coalition of California environmental NGOs quietly agreed to serve as plaintiffs in a parallel recycling lawsuit financed by Australian billionaire Andrew Forrest. 

In the weeks leading up to the lawsuit, CCI rolled out coordinated polling and messaging aligned with the report’s themes – telegraphing the litigation strategy before it was even announced.  

When Bonta filed the state’s case that September, his complaint closely tracked CCI’s materials, citing the CCI report nine times, the Free Beacon reports:  

“Bonta’s complaint, meanwhile, cites the CCI’s report that Wasserman referenced nine times, parrots its exact language, and makes nearly identical arguments. […] In addition, both the CCI and Bonta rely on some of the same primary source documents the CCI first gathered as part of its February report.” [Emphasis added] 

Wasserman’s Campaign to Raise Energy Prices Is Nothing New 

As the Free Beacon notes, Wasserman’s comments strongly suggest California’s plastics case is “part of the fund’s broader decade-long effort to dismantle the oil industry through an onslaught of state lawsuits.” 

Beyond New York’s failed climate lawsuit, the same Rockefeller-linked network remains integral to the litigation that has followed in its wake. Under Wasserman’s direction, RFF has poured millions into nearly every front of the campaign – underwriting academic reports, driving sympathetic media narratives, bankrolling activist networks, and supporting law firms bringing litigation.  

Despite these efforts, a growing number of courts have dismissed climate lawsuits. Now, having failed to hold a few companies “accountable” for global climate change, Wasserman has expanded his campaign against the industry into new arenas – pushing “climate superfund” legislation, plastics lawsuits, and a wrongful death allegation.  

In New York, the sponsor of the state’s “climate superfund” bill introduced Wasserman on a Zoom call as a “crucial member of the team” that developed the legislation. Wasserman also personally lobbied in both New York and Vermont for passage of the bills and boasted in 2024 that RFF “spent roughly $200,000 since 2022 in support of environmental efforts in Vermont, including passage of the climate Superfund law.”  

Bottom Line: Lee Wasserman’s candid remarks at NYC Climate Week confirm what the record has long shown: California’s plastics lawsuit is part of a broader effort to drive policy through the courts and bypass voters. It sheds light on simply the latest iteration of that blueprint: a blend of funded research, coordinated polling, and media amplification designed to manufacturer momentum for the lawfare.  

Nearly every major “climate deception” or “consumer fraud” case since 2017 traces back to the same Rockefeller orbit – with the same funders, law firms, and far-fetched theories appearing across the cases – all with the same goal of driving up energy costs for consumers and demonizing an industry that we all rely on.