GOP Prosecutor’s ‘Threatening’ Letters to Medical Journals Spark Outrage!

On Friday, in response to letters sent by an interim U.S. attorney to multiple U.S. medical journals, the U.K.-based journal Lancet expressed solidarity and criticized the “harassment of journals.” The journal highlighted that this action is part of a broader, radical dismantling of the United States’ scientific framework.

The inquiries in these letters, which probe the journals for potential bias, follow a statement from the Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. last year. Kennedy had expressed a desire to prosecute medical journals and had specifically accused the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) of dishonesty regarding its 2020 criticisms of President Donald Trump’s pandemic response.

The letters from Edward Martin, the interim U.S. Attorney with previous allegations of targeting Trump’s detractors, represent a clear attempt to intimidate and undermine the journals’ editorial independence, according to The Lancet.

NEJM is among at least four medical journals that have recently received such letters. According to Medical Professionals Reference, another journal, CHEST, published by the American College of Chest Physicians, received a letter on April 14 posing several queries and demanding responses by May 2:

• What measures do you take to shield the public from misinformation?
• How do you transparently communicate to the public any potential biases arising from relationships with sponsors, funders, advertisers, and others?
• Are submissions from differing viewpoints welcomed in your journal?
• What role do government entities like the National Institutes of Health play in the development of your published articles?
• How do you address claims that authors in your journals may have deceived readers?

Martin also inquired whether there has been any change in how journals, publishers, and related organizations handle diverse viewpoints.

Eric Reinhart, a psychiatrist at Northwestern University, shared the letter on the social media platform X, questioning the types of “competing viewpoints” Martin, a former Missouri Republican Party chair and president of a conservative legal group, might expect from journals focused on respiratory health.

Reinhart sarcastically proposed absurd topics such as the merits of treating sarcoidosis, the appropriateness of care for transgender individuals with chest infections, or the efficacy of ivermectin as a lung cancer cure. He mockingly noted Kennedy’s newfound influence in ensuring these controversial topics get discussed.

Reinhart has encouraged other editors to publicly resist any intimidation they face from the Trump-appointed official.

Adam Gaffney, a lung and critical care doctor at Cambridge Health Alliance and former head of Physicians for a National Health Program, echoed the sentiment, describing the situation as a thinly veiled attempt at anti-scientific political coercion.

Gaffney pointed out that this is yet another move by the Trump administration to manipulate academic freedom and suppress scientific dialogue, noting the administration’s history of endorsing medical misinformation and pseudoscience with dangerous consequences.

These letters have been circulated amid recent controversial statements by Kennedy about severe autism cases and his initial dismissal of the U.S. measles outbreaks—only later conceding that the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine is crucial for prevention.

Furthermore, the Trump administration’s reductions in healthcare funding have raised alarms about the potential decline in the U.S.’s capability to produce top-tier biomedical research—a field in which it has excelled for decades.

In response to the inquiries, NEJM addressed Martin before the May 2 deadline, affirming the journal’s commitment to unbiased scientific evaluation through stringent peer review and editorial processes. The journal staunchly supports the editorial freedom of medical publications and their constitutional right to free expression.

Eric Rubin, editor-in-chief of NEJM, told The New York Times that the nature of the questions implies a suspicion of bias, adding a subtly threatening tone to the communications.