DOJ questions science journal about bias, triggering free speech concerns
Amid brewing conflict between scientists and the administration of President Donald Trump, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia sent an unusual letter this week to a scientific journal focused on diseases and medicine related to the chest, asking about its editorial policies.
'It has been brought to my attention that more and more journals like CHEST journal are conceding that they are partisans in various scientific debates,' U.S. Attorney Ed Martin wrote.
In the letter, Martin said that he has been told some journals 'have a position for which they are advocating due to advertisement (under postal code) or sponsorship (under relevant fraud regulations).'
Martin's letter states, 'The public has certain expectations and you have certain responsibilities.' It then poses questions about the journal's view of its role in protecting the public from misinformation, its publication of 'competing viewpoints' and its handling of allegations that authors have misled readers.
Martin requested that the journal's editor in chief, Peter Mazzone, respond by May 2.
Chest, an Illinois-based monthly journal published by the American College of Chest Physicians with a global circulation of more than 13,000 and more than 156,000 average monthly visits online, confirmed that it received the letter and was having it reviewed by legal counsel.
'Its content was posted online without our knowledge,' the journal said in a brief statement, declining to comment on the requests made by Martin in the letter.
Free speech experts raised alarm over the letter.
'It's baffling that the chief federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia could send a letter like this,' said David Snyder, executive director of the nonpartisan, nonprofit First Amendment Coalition. 'I cannot imagine what purpose a letter like this would serve other than to chill freedom of expression.'
'The government has no authority under the First Amendment to regulate the editorial decisions of publications, and the letter suggests that's what Martin intends to do,' Snyder added.
A spokesman for The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services declined to comment, referring questions to the office of the U.S. attorney.
The Justice Department and Martin's office did not respond to requests for comment.
The letter comes as the scientific community has raised alarm over Trump administration actions that have halted or disrupted research and science. Since Trump's inauguration on Jan. 20, funding from the National Institutes of Health has dropped by more than $3 billion compared with grants issued during the same period last year, according to a review of publicly available grant data as of late March. Universities that power research and innovation across the country fear losing billions in federal funding amid the administration's actions against elite institutions it views as bastions of 'woke' ideology and anti-Israel sentiment. And the White House budget draft for the Department of Health and Human Services calls for massive cuts to federal programs dealing with health and science.
It's unclear whether similar letters have been sent to other journals. Three other major publishers of medical and scientific journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine and Health Affairs, said they had not received similar letters from Martin. Springer Nature, a large publisher of such journals, said there was no one available to comment when asked whether any of its publications had been contacted by Martin.
'When a U.S. Attorney wields the power of his office to target medical journals over their content, he isn't doing his job, let alone upholding his constitutional oath,' JT Morris, supervising senior attorney for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said in a statement.
'These letters are just the latest in a pattern of Ed Martin sticking his nose in places where it doesn't belong, all in an effort to pursue speakers who express views he doesn't like,' he added.
Martin has sent letters to critics of Elon Musk and the U.S. Supreme Court admonishing them for comments he viewed as threatening or bullying.
Snyder said that he did not see 'any legal compulsion that would require [Chest] to respond.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘Tough and tender.' Longtime advocate for Pierce County homicide victims dies
Lew Cox, a longtime advocate for victims of violent crime who was a fixture in the courthouse in Pierce County, was recently involved in a car crash and died at 85. Cox was well known by prosecutors, law enforcement and the scores of families he helped to process grief and understand the inner workings of the judicial system, turning his own personal tragedy into a mission to assist others to heal. His 22-year-old daughter, Carmon, was murdered in Los Angeles in 1987 while Cox was in the Philippines performing work through a ministry he started, according to his wife, Suzanne, and an online letter Cox authored in 2008. Cox founded Tacoma-based Violent Crime Victims Services four years after his daughter was killed, giving families and friends of homicide victims a reputable advocate in someone intimately familiar with the experience of losing a loved one. He worked with over 1,000 families, including in high-profile cases such as the Green River killings, Suzanne Cox said in an interview. The organization, which she said essentially folded about two years ago after her husband left in 2021, offered crisis intervention, peer counseling, support groups and court guidance. While Lew Cox was dedicated to Pierce County, he helped families elsewhere, including outside the United States, according to his wife. 'I don't think anybody knows more about grief counseling than Lew,' Scott Bramhall, who became a client in 1992 after his wife's brother was murdered in Tacoma, said in an interview. Lew Cox died May 14, involved in a two-vehicle crash in the 7900 block of Valley Avenue Northwest near the Fife-Puyallup border. Suzanne Cox and Bramhall said Tuesday that all details were not yet known but that he may have suffered some type of medical event prior to the wreck and they were awaiting clarity from the Pierce County Medical Examiner's Office. The driver of the other vehicle was taken to a hospital with non-life-threatening injuries, authorities said. Lew Cox, a graduate of Stadium High School, was frequently found in the pages of The News Tribune. Violent Crime Victim Services was credited in 1997 with helping a mother who became a political activist after her 21-year-old son was slain. Cox provided his perspective on the relief that families felt being able to address 'Green River Killer' Gary Ridgway during Ridgway's sentencing hearing in 2003. He advocated for justice in 2004 as then-Pierce County Prosecutor Gerald Horne weighed whether to charge the Washington D.C.-area snipers with the 2002 slaying of a 21-year-old woman. In other instances, he acted as a family spokesperson to the press, defended a prosecutor's rationale for not seeking the death penalty for the murder of an armored guard, reflected on a week spent in New York following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and described the difficulty of enduring in the aftermath of heartbreak. 'Am I over this? No. You never get over it. There's a piece of your heart that's been ripped out,' he told a News Tribune reporter in 2004. 'I loved my daughter very much; losing her was the worst pain a father can experience. But I also knew I had to resume life.' Bramhall, a retired Puyallup police detective, said that Cox — who also served for roughly 25 years as a chaplain for the Des Moines Police Department — was an asset to prosecutors and law enforcement as a liaison between officials and crime victims' families. 'If you went to the courthouse, you would oftentimes find him there,' Bramhall said. Pierce County deputy prosecutor Lisa Wagner recalled Cox as omnipresent in courthouse hallways and 'really, such a huge help' because he had the ability to keep close relationships with victims' families even after they had left the courthouse — ties that prosecutors and Pierce County's victim advocates don't ordinarily maintain. Wagner, who met Cox three decades ago through her work, said he had a keen understanding of the legal system and willingly re-lived his own trauma for the sake of providing 'incalculable' aid to others. Cox was genuinely kind and caring, Wagner said in an interview. 'You don't often run into people like that in my business,' she said. Prosecuting Attorney Mary Robnett first crossed paths with Cox in the mid-1990s, and he was well known to the attorneys and advocates in the Prosecutor's Office, she told The News Tribune. He had the air of a religious leader and was soft-spoken, warm and approachable, according to Robnett, who said it was comforting to have him around. Her office would pick up his phone calls or set aside time to meet with him, and he often showed up to court hearings with family members of victims, she said. Robnett said she remembers Cox sitting in court, attending community events and appearing at law enforcement funerals. Ultimately, he wanted to be a resource for victims' families. 'He did that and he did that really well,' she said. Suzanne Cox described her husband as 'a tough and tender kind of guy' who wasn't known to dwell. He had experienced more than one tragedy in his life. Shortly after the murder of his daughter — born from a previous marriage — his wife died, too, she said. He later lost a son. 'I just always was kind of amazed by his resiliency,' she said. Suzanne and Lew Cox married in 1991. He was a published author, co-writing a book titled, 'Coping with Traumatic Death: Homicide,' that sought to shepherd grieving families through loss. He also served on a Washington state task force related to criminal sentencing as a strong proponent of not lowering punishment, testified in front of state lawmakers and took the stand in a civil court case, Suzanne Cox said. He trained therapists and chaplains, and worked as a consultant after leaving Violent Crime Victim Services. 'He cared for people. He cared for everybody that he worked with,' she said. 'He just had a real heart for victims and he had a heart to see that things would be better for them in terms of the laws.' Lew Cox also enjoyed outside interests, namely trains, planes and automobiles, and he was a commercially rated pilot, according to his wife and Bramhall. He was an avid tennis player and church-goer who liked to dress up in suits. He also wasn't afraid to speak his mind, including when his wife cooked too much pasta or neighborhood kids were too loud. In his youth, Lew Cox was an altar boy and later worked in a shoe store, drove trucks hauling gasoline, sugar or honey, and opened a health food shop in Federal Way that was eventually bought and turned into Marlene's Market & Deli, according to Suzanne Cox. In the last year of his life, Lew Cox had suffered some health issues but none that were debilitating, his wife said. The day before he died, the couple had learned that he had a mass on his bladder but it wasn't known if it was cancerous. He died on his wife's birthday, just four days before their 34th wedding anniversary. 'Lew was very dedicated,' Bramhall said. 'He would sink his teeth into a project and not let go. 'And his teeth were sunk into caring for the people who were facing a grief that no one else could help them with.' Lew Cox is survived by his wife, two daughters, two granddaughters and one great-grandson. His family is planning on holding a funeral service in August in Federal Way, where he and his wife lived.
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - More renters are getting lawyers during evictions, and that's a good thing
Last year, landlords in Los Angeles filed almost 90,000 eviction cases. These cases are hard on tenants: Beyond just the immediate loss of housing, eviction leads to drops in income, higher rates of homelessness, serious health issues, and even increased risk of death. Yet the vast majority of Angelenos who navigate the complex eviction court process do so alone. That is about to change. Last month, Los Angeles joined 18 other cities, two counties, and five states across the nation where most or all tenants are guaranteed a lawyer when they go to court for an eviction. These 'right-to-counsel' programs improve outcomes for individual tenants, but their impact goes further: They can help to coordinate services, change the way the courts operate, and open up new possibilities for tenant organizing. As researchers who study eviction in the U.S., we urge more jurisdictions to push forward housing justice and stability for renters by extending the right to counsel. These programs are particularly important now. Over the last twenty years, rents have gone up much faster than incomes, leaving half of renters cost-burdened. Faced with these sorts of affordability challenges — and given evidence that homelessness is at an all-time high and rising — the federal government should be taking steps to protect renters. Instead, it is making the situation worse. The Trump administration is proposing shrinking the Department of Housing and Urban Development and gutting key benefits such as Housing Choice Vouchers. Right-to-counsel programs provide an example of what state and local governments can do to step into the leadership void created by federal retrenchment. Pop culture has sold us the myth that every defendant has the right to an attorney. But that's not true. Americans aren't necessarily guaranteed a government-funded lawyer when faced with a civil action such as debt collection, a child custody claim, or a landlord-tenant dispute. They're on their own unless they can afford a lawyer, and most people can't. These civil actions are far more common than criminal cases. In any given year, almost half of Americans have to deal with a civil legal case. Take eviction, for example. An average of 7.6 million Americans face eviction cases annually; only 4 percent of these tenants have lawyers to help them through this rapid, complicated, and deeply consequential process. That started changing in 2017, when New York City established the nation's first right to counsel program. Since then, this movement has expanded protections for renters in San Francisco, Baltimore, Detroit, and dozens of other places. Although programs differ in who receives access to a lawyer and when in the process they can get help, the basic idea is the same: to provide tenants with legal assistance during what may be their darkest hour. For tenants who now have lawyers, these programs make a world of difference. Eviction filings are less likely to result in a tenant being removed by court order, and even those that do result in evictions often leave the tenant owing less money. The benefits to health and well-being are also substantial. For example, the availability of right to counsel during pregnancy reduces adverse birth outcomes among newborns. At the end of the day, a lawyer cannot make up for missed rent. But in our work studying how jurisdictions have implemented right-to-counsel, we have seen how the presence of lawyers defending tenants can lead to wholesale culture shifts in civil courts — something that rental assistance and other one-time interventions don't achieve. We have seen courts where, rather than just rubber-stamping landlords' eviction cases, judges now inform tenants of their rights and postpone hearings to make sure that they are represented. Courts can become a place where advocates and social workers connect tenants with services and resources and diversion is a priority. To meet their full potential, state and local leaders need to provide the stable, long-term funding necessary to launch and run these programs right. That means adequate money for outreach and education so that tenants know that protections are available if they show up to court. It also means sufficient funding to ensure that enough lawyers are available, a challenge that the New York City program has faced. San Francisco provides a model of how to do this right, steadily increasing funding, even expanding support during the pandemic when other programs were being cut. Right to counsel programs are bringing change, justice, and hope for renters experiencing one of the most difficult challenges of their lives. As the federal government pulls back supports and reverses longstanding legal protections for low-income renters, it's time for state and local leaders to work together to expand protections like right-to-counsel in a sustainable way that can help as many families as possible avoid the irreversible fallout of eviction and the risk of homelessness. Peter Hepburn is an assistant professor of sociology at Rutgers University-Newark and associate director of Princeton University's Eviction Lab. Emily A. Benfer is a professor of clinical law at the George Washington University Law School and a research collaborator at the Princeton University Eviction Lab. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration threat to end Harvard contracts puts research at risk
May 30 (UPI) -- The Trump administration is seeking to end all contracts it has with Harvard University, a move that adds to the strain between the federal government and America's researchers. The administration announced on Tuesday that it is in the process of reviewing its contracts with Harvard in preparation for their termination. The move may cost the United States a generation of top researchers, Sarah Spreitzer, vice president and chief of staff in the American Council of Education's government relations department, told UPI. "We're going to lose grad students or post-docs that might have been educated in those federally funded labs," Spreitzer said. "The undergrads are going to lose the opportunity of working alongside those researchers and learning from their work." Harvard has contracts partnering with government departments including NASA, Veterans Affairs, the Office of the Secretary in the Department of Commerce and the Small Business Administration. Dozens of these contracts have been entered into, extended or otherwise updated since President Donald Trump took office. Harvard University did not respond to requests for comment from UPI. One of the largest contracts Harvard holds with the government is a $15 million contract from the Department of Health and Human Services. It is described in the Federal Procurement Data System as a "task order for human organ chip enabled development of radiation countermeasures." It was entered into on July 26. Another of its largest contracts is a $10.6 million contract with the National Institutes of Health for tuberculosis research. Harvard holds more than one contract with the government related to this work. "They want to do more with less," Spreitzer said of the Trump administration. "They're making decisions based on budgetary impacts but that's layered on top of some of the regulatory actions that they are taking, which is really, again, slowing down or completely stalling the scientific process." The Trump administration has cut research funding grants to several universities, many of them Ivy League schools. It has also made cuts to programs in the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, among others that offer grant opportunities to universities. Since World War II, the U.S. government has leaned on universities to expand its research capabilities, leading to innovations in health, technology, economics and other disciplines. Spreitzer, who has been an advocate for higher education for 20 years. In that time she said she has interacted with nearly every federal agency, said the partnership has advanced the interests of the government and delivered value to U.S. taxpayers. "Right now we are at this historical inflection point where the federal government is rethinking their partnership with our institutions of higher education," she said. "It's been a very profitable and very important partnership that's helped the entire United States. Whether you're talking about new drugs or medical research or the innovative products that might be spun out and have created jobs." The rethinking of the partnership between the government and universities goes beyond contracts and grants. It is also proposing a lower cap on its reimbursement to universities for indirect costs or facilities and administrative costs. These are overhead expenses that an institution has that are not related to specific projects, such as government-funded research. Prior to the current Trump administration, the National Institutes of Health reimbursed an average of 27% to 28% of direct costs to universities to help cover indirect costs. These rates were negotiated with some institutions being reimbursed at rates more than 50%. There has not been a cap on most reimbursements since Congress removed them in 1965. In February, the National Institutes of Health announced a new policy to cap these reimbursements at 15%. The American Council on Education filed a lawsuit seeking to block the proposed cap, warning that it would greatly disrupt research across the country. Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs granted a preliminary injunction against the Department of Energy from instituting a rate cap policy. The injunction succeeds a temporary restraining order Burroughs granted against the administration, shielding all institutions of higher education from rate caps. "It would have a huge impact on our institutions," Spreitzer said. "They've also made huge cuts in some of the fellowship programs. Whether it's the fellowship program for the next generation of NSF scientists or whether it's the Fulbright program -- those have all been suddenly stopped."
