WASHINGTON, D.C. – June 2025 — Leading U.S. medical journals have found themselves at the center of a controversy that’s raising alarms in both the scientific and legal communities. In an unprecedented move, Edward R. Martin Jr., the interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, has sent formal inquiries to at least four prominent medical publications, questioning their neutrality, funding sources, and editorial policies.
The recipients include some of the most respected journals in the country: The New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, Obstetrics & Gynecology, and CHEST. The letters, which editorial teams describe as unexpected and vaguely threatening, suggest that these institutions may be guilty of biased reporting and ask them to justify how they handle controversial scientific topics.
“We were surprised,” said Dr. Eric Rubin, editor-in-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine. “We operate with an incredibly rigorous editorial process. To have our impartiality questioned in this way—without evidence—is unsettling.”
A Shadow Over Scientific Publishing
The letters don’t cite specific articles or accusations of misinformation but instead pose general questions about editorial integrity and potential political slants. They imply that medical journals may have become “partisans in scientific debates,” and ask how they manage competing viewpoints, especially in relation to funders like the NIH and pharmaceutical advertisers.
Editors say the tone of the letters was disturbing—especially with references to tax-exempt status, which could imply legal or financial consequences.
Also Read – FDA Approves Injectable Lenacapavir in Major Step for HIV Prevention
“It feels like intimidation,” Rubin said. “Our role is to publish peer-reviewed, evidence-based science—not to cater to ideological preferences.”
A Constitutional Challenge?
First Amendment scholars and legal experts were quick to raise concerns. J.T. Morris, an attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, called the government’s action “a chilling encroachment on academic freedom.”
“There’s no legal basis for these demands,” Morris said. “And yet, in this political climate, who’s to say the administration won’t try to punish institutions they disagree with by bending or abusing the legal system?”
While the First Amendment protects scientific publishing, experts say the ambiguity of Martin’s letter is what makes it dangerous—especially if federal agencies begin applying pressure under the guise of oversight.
