The Trump administration reportedly tightens the reins on Veterans Affairs scientists
Last week, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. warned that the Trump administration might crack down on government scientists contributing to medical journals and instead create 'in-house' medical publications. And it seems the administration is wasting no time in moving forward.
According to The Guardian, the administration essentially tongue-lashed two Department of Veteran Affairs scientists via email after they co-authored a report — published in the New England Journal of Medicine — highlighting how federal cuts could negatively affect patients' health. Basically, the two scientists, Texas-based pulmonologists Pavan Ganapathiraju and Rebecca Traylor, said cuts at their agency could have disastrous effects on veterans' respiratory health.
And that didn't go over well with their bosses. The Guardian reported:
The edict, laid down in emails on Friday by Curt Cashour, the VA's assistant secretary for public and intergovernmental affairs, and John Bartrum, a senior adviser to VA secretary Doug Collins, came hours after the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine published a perspective co-authored by two pulmonologists who work for the VA in Texas.
'We have guidance for this,' wrote Cashour, a former Republican congressional aide and campaign consultant, attaching the journal article. 'These people did not follow it.'
The Guardian reported further:
The article sparked an immediate rebuke from Trump's political appointees, according to internal emails obtained by the Guardian. 'We have noticed a number of academic articles and press articles recently,' Bartrum wrote, attaching a copy of the journal article. 'Please remind the field and academic community that they need to follow the VA policy.'
Cashour, the assistant secretary, wrote that approval for publication in national media was delegated to his office. Local and regional directors were to inform Washington 'as soon as possible' when situations exist 'that have the potential for negative national exposure'.
The issue here seems obvious. I think Americans should want experts working for them who can offer scientifically based critiques or recommendations on U.S. policy, especially if their work is laid out sanely in a respected medical journal. The idea of such views potentially being suppressed not out of primary concern for public health but rather 'the potential for negative national exposure,' as Bartrum suggested in his email, is worrisome. This kind of restriction seems to fit within the administration's broader attack on scientific expertise, such as its rescission of federal research grants that is driving some scientists out of the country.
The VA's press secretary, Peter Kasperowicz, said in a statement to MSNBC that requiring approval for contributions to medical journals is 'VA policy that has been in place for several years across both Democrat and Republican administrations' and 'requires VA employees to properly coordinate with public affairs staff prior to speaking with the media.'
He added that 'virtually every organization both inside and outside government has similar policies.'
That claim was disputed by one of the authors, Ganapathiraju, who said his co-authored article was in full compliance and that VA rules encourage — but don't require — coordination with public affairs professionals at the agency.
It certainly looks like the Trump administration is engaging in academic censorship. And the fact that the administration's major 'in-house' health report has been a complete disaster doesn't exactly paint this White House as trustworthy on the matter of scientific research.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
18 minutes ago
Ex-White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre book out this fall, 'Independent'
NEW YORK -- Former White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre has a book out this fall that promises a close look at President Biden's decision not to run for reelection and calls for thinking beyond the two-party system. Jean-Pierre herself has switched her affiliation to independent after working in two Democratic administrations, according to Legacy Lit, a Hachette Book Group imprint that will publish 'Independent: A Look Inside a Broken White House, Outside the Party Lines' on Oct. 21. 'Until January 20, I was responsible for speaking on behalf of the President of the United States," Jean-Pierre, the first Black woman and openly gay person to hold the position of White House press secretary, said in a statement released Wednesday. 'At noon on that day, I became a private citizen who, like all Americans and many of our allies around the world, had to contend with what was to come next for our country. I determined that the danger we face as a country requires freeing ourselves of boxes. We need to be willing to exercise the ability to think creatively and plan strategically.' Jean-Pierre, 50, succeeded Jen Psaki as press secretary in 2022 after previously serving as deputy press secretary and also working as a senior adviser during Biden's victorious 2020 campaign. During President Barack Obama's first term, she was a regional political director. Jean-Pierre was criticized at times for being evasive about Biden's physical condition. Wednesday's announcement from Legacy Lit says that she will take readers 'through the three weeks that led to Biden's abandoning his bid for a second term and the betrayal by the Democratic Party that led to his decision.' 'She presents clear arguments and provocative evidence as an insider about the importance of dismantling the torrent of disinformation and misinformation that has been rampant in recent elections and provides passionate insight for moving forward,' the announcement said.
Miami Herald
21 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Can Trump Tackle US ‘Chronic Disease Crisis'? Experts Weigh In
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s vow to "Make America Healthy Again" could fall short when it comes to chronic disease, experts have warned. When the MAHA Commission report on chronic disease came out in May, President Donald Trump made it clear his administration was committed to tackling the epidemic "We will not stop until we defeat the chronic disease epidemic in America, we're going to get it done for the first time ever," said Trump during a MAHA event at the White House on May . In a statement included in the press release accompanying the report, Kennedy Jr. said: "We will end the childhood chronic disease crisis by attacking its root causes head-on-not just managing its symptoms." Nearly 130 million Americans are estimated to have at least one form of chronic disease, which could be heart disease, cancer, diabetes, obesity or hypertension, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Experts told Newsweek that, while the Trump administration's ambition to "defeat" the "epidemic" is clear, whether its policies will help or hinder chronic-disease patients remains to be seen. On one hand, Kennedy Jr.'s recent MAHA report, which detailed what the administration believed to be the leading causes of chronic disease in children, indicated the aim was to reduce the prevalence of chronic conditions through public education and research. On the other hand, the proposed cuts to Medicaid funding and work requirements for eligibility to the benefits, which are set to come as part of the broader GOP budget bill, could leave many with chronic disease without access to vital care. As many as three in four adults enrolled in Medicaid report having one or more chronic conditions, and many are unable to work the hours needed to meet the new eligibility requirements, according to nonprofit health policy research and news organization, KFF. So, while some may be medically exempt, others will lose their health coverage, meaning their conditions could worsen without access to care. Newsweek has contacted the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) via email on Tuesday. Since he became health secretary, Kennedy Jr. has promised to increase research in the root causes of illness and ensure the American diet is full of high-quality foods, while limiting access to ultra-processed food and certain chemicals, which he believes are contributors to chronic disease. The report states that consumption of ultra-processed foods "has gone up at an exponential rate as share of the American diet." Earlier in the year, Kennedy, had described products from companies like Kellogg's and McDonald's as "mass poison to children." Prioritizing research on the issue is crucial, Kenneth E. Thorpe, a professor of health policy at Emory University, Georgia, and honorary chair of the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease (PFCD), told Newsweek. "Renewed focus on chronic disease and the impact that the U.S. diet has on it-focusing on artificial or chemical ingredients in food, particularly the impact of ultra processed foods-is important," he said. He added that this was because of the fact diet has "a direct impact on the growing rates of chronic conditions like obesity and obesity-related comorbidities such diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancers and many more." "I applaud the Trump administration's focus on addressing the number one cause of death and disability in the U.S.-chronic, non-communicable disease," said Thorpe, who has been an advocate of chronic disease prevention in the U.S. for over 30 years. "We have more people with more chronic diseases, with just 5 percent of the population accounting for 50 percent of the costs in health care." He added that it is estimated that from 2016 to 2030 the cost of chronic disease will be in excess of $42 trillion. "The time is now to focus on the prevention and better management of chronic disease," Thorpe added. While it's too early to tell if the Trump administration is heading down the right path to lower chronic disease prevalence, Dr. Adrian Hernandez, director of the Duke Clinical Research Institute at the Duke University School of Medicine, told Newsweek that "leading indicators appear to be going the wrong way." He said this was partly because of the changes being proposed to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). A proposal for the HHS, most of which was reported on in April, reduces by almost 40 percent its budget for 2026 and reveals major funding cuts for the NIH, according to CNN. Newsweek has contacted the NIH via email on Tuesday. Hernandez added that changes, such as the proposed cuts in federal funding, to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) were also going down the wrong path. Rather than cuts to these federal health agencies, Hernandez said tackling chronic disease will require "an investment" in science and health. He said that the same was needed for health care delivery models like Medicaid and Medicare-rather than making cuts to the programs, the administration should "invest in preventative health." The GOP budget bill, which is progressing through the legislative ranks, instructs the committee to reduce the Department of Health and Human Services budget by $880 billion over 10 years, which would include cuts to Medicaid alongside other measures such as implementing work requirements. Ross Brownson, director of the Prevention Research Center at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, told Newsweek that Medicaid cuts would "likely have a detrimental effect on chronic disease risk among the most vulnerable populations," adding Medicaid-enrolled adults have significantly higher rates of chronic disease than individuals privately insured. "The drive to defeat chronic disease stalls if Medicaid patients are placed in the backseat," Thorpe said. "Today, the federal program is far from perfect, but it is a lifeline for those who need it," Thorpe added, saying it was "often the only pathway to care" for many with chronic disease. Experts insist that chronic disease is a deeply complex issue that requires long-term solutions and attention. Brownson noted that there has been "sparse attention to physical inactivity and tobacco use," as major risk factors for chronic disease. "This is a two-edged sword," Brownson told Newsweek. He said that while "on one hand, labeling this issue a crisis implies a sense of urgency and may mobilize action." Ultimately "the jury is still out on whether they will solve the chronic disease crisis." "We often have a short attention span and with this crisis label, policy makers may think the problem can be solved quickly and then move on to a new issue. We need to think of this as a long-term challenge in need of attention," he added. Related Articles Foods That May Lower Risk of Early Death RevealedRFK Is Right-Food Additive Transparency Can Make America Healthy Again | OpinionManaging PoTS: Tips for Living with the Chronic Illness Affecting MillionsWhat to Eat When You're Living With Long COVID 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Miami Herald
21 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Donald Trump's Scores Highest Approval Rating in Weeks
President Donald Trump has scored his highest approval rating in two weeks. A new survey by Republican pollster Trafalgar Group, conducted May 30 to June 1, suggested 54 percent of voters approved, while 46 percent disapproved—a net approval rating of +8. Trump's approval rating has not been higher among any pollster since InsiderAdvantage's poll conducted May 17 to 19, when 55 percent of those surveyed approved and 44 percent disapproved—a net approval rating of +11. The new Trafalgar poll was conducted among 1,098 voters had a margin of error of 2.9 percentage points. This article will be updated. Related Articles Elon Musk Issues Social Security Warning Over Spending BillMortgage Rates Are Trapped in 'Groundhog Day'Kid Rock's New Restaurant Flooded With Negative Reviews: 'Trash Food'Can Trump Tackle US 'Chronic Disease Crisis'? Experts Weigh In 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
