Justice Department sends intimidating missives to medical publications

Justice Department sends intimidating missives to medical publications

Rewritten Article:

Letters to Medical Journals Stir Controversy Over Bias

In a surprising move, several medical journals across the nation have recently received letters from the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Edward R. Martin Jr. The letters question the impartiality of these journals in scientific debates, sparking heated conversations on editorial independence and government intervention.

In a letter to CHEST, Martin expresses concern that some journals and publications are referring to themselves as "partisans" in various scientific debates. He goes on to ask a series of questions, probing the role of misinformation, competing viewpoints, and the influence of funders such as advertisers and the National Institutes of Health.

"We were taken aback," admits Dr. Eric Rubin, the editor-in-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine, one of at least four journals to receive a letter from Martin. "Other journals had previously gotten letters, so it wasn't entirely surprising, but still, a surprise."

The journal editors under scrutiny include those from JAMA, the American Medical Association; Obstetrics & Gynecology, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; and CHEST, the American College of Chest Physicians. While the exact number of targeted journals is uncertain, it is evident that the inquiry casts a wide net.

"We were worried since the questions suggested that we might be biased in the research we report," Rubin explains. "We aren't. We follow a stringent review process, employing outside experts, internal editors who are field experts, and dedicating substantial time to selecting articles and ensuring accuracy."

Rubin notes that the letter also mentioned the journal's tax-exempt status, expressing a tone perceived as threatening.

First Amendment Relevance Unclear

The letters do not cite specific instances of supposed bias or outline possible actions Martin might take. However, others view these letters as a cause for alarm.

"It's quite unprecedented," remarks J.T. Morris, a lawyer at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a free speech advocacy group. "The First Amendment protects medical journals, but there's always a concern that the federal government and its officials will overstep their boundaries and attempt to silence scientific forums and professionals."

Implications for Science Publishing

Medical journals serve a crucial function in sifting and sharing scientific information, including data on effective treatments, ineffective ones, and potential risks.

"This inquiry indicates the extent to which the Trump administration is prepared to meddle with scientific research and the scientific community," comments Carl Bergstrom, a biology professor at the University of Washington. "They'll stop at nothing to influence science in a way they deem beneficial."

The letters arrive amidst the Trump administration's efforts to dictate what scientists can say in a myriad of ways, including stifling communication, suppressing studies about vaccine misinformation, and controlling speech regarding LGBTQ+ health issues.

Recently, they have mandated scientists to revise language in their grants and research labeled as "woke," encompassing gender terminology.

"This administration is attacking the scientific community, whether it's researchers in universities or institutions like NIH, FDA, CDC or journals and their editors," states Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet, a leading British medical journal. Horton's publication has yet to receive one of the letters, but published an editorial denouncing the inquiries.

"This is a scientific research ecosystem, and it's the functioning of that ecosystem that has yielded incredible breakthroughs over several decades. And that's exactly what's under attack," Horton insists.

Trump Administration's Criticism of Journals

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya have both criticized medical journals, with Kennedy even threatening legal action against journals. Shortly before taking over at the NIH, Bhattacharya helped establish a new journal aiming to provide an alternative to mainstream publications.

Neither Martin nor the Department of Justice responded to NPR's requests for comment.

However, not everyone perceives the letters as an attempt to intimidate journals.

"I share concerns with the U.S. attorney that American scientific groups and journals have grown overly activist and overly liberal in recent years," says Judge Glock, who directs research at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank.

Despite Glock's shared concerns, he believes the Justice Department should not delve into the affairs of these particular journals. "The U.S. attorney shouldn't be concerned with the stance of these particular journals," Glock advises. "They shouldn't request information and shouldn't try to prompt them to publish certain types of editorials or alter their editorial practices based on what a U.S. attorney finds acceptable."

Some argue that the dominant medical journals indeed harbor bias.

"These journals have been captured by what I call a blob – a group of gatekeepers collaborating with Big Pharma, public health agencies, academia, and they all know each other," claims Roger Severino of the Heritage Foundation, another conservative think tank. "Yes, there's significant bias, and they should be seeking truth above all. But they instead become a special interest themselves."

1. The government intervention, as indicated by the letters from the interim U.S. attorney Edward R. Martin Jr, has ignited debates within the community, focusing on the editorial independence of medical journals.
2. In 2025, Judge Glock from the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, asserted that certain medical journals have become biased and overly activist, suggesting the need for reform without government intervention.
3. The controversy surrounding bias in medical journals, as raised by the letters, has implications for science publishing, potentially threatening the health-and-wellness sector, including medical conditions research and health-and-wellness practices.
4. Columbia University's Medical School faculty could find themselves caught in the crossfire as the administration pushes for edits to grant language and research regarding medical-conditions and health-and-wellness.
5. Decision-makers in the Columbia community, from the science department to the school of public health, need to remain vigilant and ensure the integrity of their research, adhering to ethical standards to assert their independence from political influence.

Read also: