Trump-Allied Prosecutor Sends Letters to Medical Journals Alleging Bias
A federal prosecutor has sent letters to at least three medical journals accusing them of political bias and asking a series of probing questions suggesting that the journals mislead readers, suppress opposing viewpoints and are inappropriately swayed by their funders.
The letters were signed by Edward Martin Jr., a Republican activist serving as interim U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C. He has been criticized for using his office to target opponents of President Trump.
Some scientists and doctors said they viewed the letters as a threat from the Trump administration that could have a chilling effect on what journals publish. The health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has said he wants to prosecute medical journals, accusing them of lying to the public and colluding with pharmaceutical companies.
One of the letters was sent to the journal Chest, published by the American College of Chest Physicians. The New York Times obtained a copy of the letter.
The Times confirmed that at least two other publishers had received nearly identically worded letters, but those publishers would not speak publicly because they feared retribution from the Trump administration.
In the letter to Chest, dated Monday, Mr. Martin wrote, 'It has been brought to my attention that more and more journals and publications like CHEST Journal are conceding that they are partisans in various scientific debates.'
He demanded that the journal's publishers answer a series of questions by May 2. Do they accept submissions from 'competing viewpoints?' What do they do if the authors they published 'may have misled their readers?' Are they transparent about influence from 'supporters, funders, advertisers and others?'
And he specifically singled out the National Institutes of Health, which funds some of the research the journals publish, asking about the agency's role 'in the development of submitted articles.'
The prosecutor's inquiry amounts to 'blatant political intimidation of our medical journals,' Dr. Adam Gaffney, a pulmonologist and researcher in Massachusetts whose articles have been published in Chest, wrote on X.
It was not clear how many journals had been targeted. Several prominent medical and science publishers said they had not received letters. Others declined requests for comment. News of the letters was earlier reported by MedPage Today, a medical news website.
The U.S. attorney's office in Washington also declined to comment. Andrew Nixon, a spokesman for the Health and Human Services Department, declined to comment on whether Mr. Kennedy had any involvement.
Laura DiMasi, a spokeswoman for the American College of Chest Physicians, confirmed that the organization had received the letter but declined an interview request.
Most of what medical journals publish is highly technical, aimed at an audience of specialists. But they and the organizations that publish them have increasingly come under attack. Right-leaning sites like Breitbart have derided them as 'woke medical journals.'
The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal group, has been attacking the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which publishes a journal and runs a variety of reproductive health programs. It has received federal funding for an effort to promote maternal health. The alliance recently urged the Trump administration to cut funding and investigate the group, saying it was pushing liberal ideas about diversity and gender.
Several journals or their publishers have publicly opposed Mr. Trump.
In January, the American Public Health Association, which publishes a journal, was among several groups that sued the Trump administration over a memo freezing federal funding. That policy that has now been rescinded, though the administration has since halted other funds.
In March, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists called mass layoffs at H.H.S. an 'attack on public health.'
In 2020, The New England Journal of Medicine published an editorial condemning Mr. Trump's response to the pandemic — the first time the journal had taken a position in an election in its 208-year history. The journal Nature endorsed Joseph R. Biden Jr. for president in the 2020 election and spoke out against a second Trump term during the 2024 election.
Medical journals are afforded the same First Amendment protections as any other news media outlet.
Kent Anderson, a consultant for scientific publishers who has written about conservative attacks on medical journals, said that Mr. Martin's inquiry could have a chilling effect among publishers.
'This is a fishing expedition from a U.S. attorney, and that makes people nervous,' Mr. Anderson said. 'It may make them think twice about an editorial about treating women who have a spontaneous abortion or about transgender teens dealing with a health issue, because it may make them think that somebody is going to knock on the door.'
Mr. Kennedy had been nursing grievances about scientific journals for years. Medical and science publishers have long rejected article submissions that purport to show a link between vaccines and autism. (Dozens of studies have failed to establish such a link.)
He said in a podcast interview last year that he would seek to prosecute medical journals under the federal anti-corruption statute.
'I'm going to litigate against you under the racketeering laws, under the general tort laws,' he said. 'I'm going to find a way to sue you unless you come up with a plan right now to show how you're going to start publishing real science and stop retracting the real science and publishing the fake pharmaceutical science by these phony industry mercenaries.'
As examples, he pointed to two prominent journals, The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, and the scientific publishing giant, Elsevier.
Other top health officials in the Trump administration have also criticized the big scientific publishers. In a book published last year, Dr. Martin A. Makary, the new commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, accused journal editorial boards of 'gate-keeping' and publishing only information that supports a 'groupthink narrative.'
Before becoming director of the N.I.H., Dr. Jay Bhattacharya publicly chastised the editor in chief of a prominent journal, Science, claiming he had 'publicly denigrated scientists' who opposed Covid-era lockdowns. Dr. Bhattacharya was widely denounced by mainstream scientists during the pandemic for proposing that the virus should allowed to spread naturally through the population.
Dr. Bhattacharya also co-founded a new journal pitched as an alternative to traditional scientific publishing. It has published contrarian views on Covid.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 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
15 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."
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Politicians, scared of truly open primaries, offer ‘limited' alternative for nonpartisan voters
Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager (Photo: Richard Bednarski/Nevada Current) A ballot measure to establish an open-primary, ranked-choice voting system in Nevada may have been rejected by voters last November, but its underlying message of voter disenfranchisement clearly struck a chord with Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager. The Assembly's top Democrat, who opposed that ballot measure, said he suspects changes to Nevada's closed primary system are coming whether the political establishment wants it or not: 'The dam is going to break one way or another. The question is: Are we going to be part of the process?' To that end, Yeager is proposing Assembly Bill 597, which would allow nonpartisan voters to participate in either the Republican or Democratic primary. He introduced the bill as an emergency measure on Monday, a week before the end of the session, and presented it to the Senate and Assembly committees on legislative operations and elections during a joint meeting Thursday. Yeager described his bill as a 'pushing back' to Question 3, the election reform proposal approved by voters in 2022 but rejected by voters in 2024. That ballot measure, which needed to pass twice because it proposed amending the state constitution, was heavily funded by out-of-state election reform groups. Those groups viewed Nevada as 'a playground in which they can experiment,' Yeager said. 'We know they will continue to attempt to exploit this issue' of closed primaries 'to fool around with our elections.' AB 597 is 'much simpler' than Question 3. There would still be Republican and Democratic primaries. The only change would be that a registered nonpartisan voter could cast a ballot in one of them. (Question 3 proposed putting all candidates on the primary ballot regardless of political party, with the top five finishers appearing on the general election for voters to rank in order of preference.) Yeager described AB 597 as a common sense solution that addresses the growing number of nonpartisan voters in the state. As of April 2025, 34.9% of registered voters in Nevada are nonpartisan, 29% are Republican and 29% are Democrats, according to the Secretary of State's Office. The remaining 7% of registered voters are members of minor parties like the Independent American or Libertarian parties. That means nonpartisan and third-party voters are the biggest voting bloc in the state. Yet they are unable to participate in the primary elections their tax dollars pay for unless they agree to temporarily affiliate with a major political party. The Nevada State Democratic Party, which opposed Question 3, has not expressed support or opposition for AB 597. But Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, a Democrat and the state's top election official, spoke in support of the bill. The Nevada State Republican Party is strongly opposed to AB 597, as they were to Question 3. Representatives from the state party and affiliated local party groups argued that allowing nonpartisans to participate in party primaries would dilute party values and invite interference from outsiders. Opponents also argued the bill is unnecessary because nonpartisan voters can already participate in a primary by temporarily registering to a political party. Nevada offers same-day voter registration, which means nonpartisan voters have that option all the way through election day. 'I think that practically that just doesn't happen,' Yeager countered. 'People are not going to change party registration and then change back. They're not partisan for a reason or not affiliated for a reason.' Some election advocates worry nonpartisan voters may similarly be turned off by the process laid out in AB 597. Yeager plans to introduce an amendment to require nonpartisan voters request a political party primary ballot by 'the 7th Monday before the election day.' (In real terms: That would have been April 23 for last year's June 11 primary.) Nonpartisans after that date would have to vote in person. Yeager's proposed amendment would also keep the state-run presidential preference primary closed. Doug Goodman, the founder of Nevadans for Election Reform, has pushed for fully open primaries for more than a decade. He took a neutral position on AB 597, saying the bill is 'far from ideal' and only 'a small start.' The bill doesn't address disenfranchisement of voters registered to minor parties, who still would be unable to participate in a major political party primary without leaving their preferred party. It also doesn't address the issue of voters not being able to cast ballots in the significant number of races decided in competitive primaries where the winner goes on to run unopposed in a general election. That is a particularly common occurrence in districts that lean heavily toward one party. Sondra Cosgrove, another outspoken advocate for election reform in Nevada, took a similar position as Goodman, though she described herself as 'reluctantly in support' of AB 597. 'In America elections belong to the people, not the political parties,' she said in a statement to the Current. 'So, I plan to run a ballot question in 2026 to adopt a fully open primary so that the people of Nevada can discuss how we would like our primary election to be managed. Many political commentators believe major election reform will only come to Nevada through a ballot measure backed by outsiders because the existing political establishment benefits from the current system. The Legislature must adjourn Monday, leaving lawmakers only a few days to pass Yeager's bill. If they do, it could still be vetoed by Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo, who has already vetoed one election bill this session.
