Federal Prosecutor Fires Off Letter To Medical Journals Asking About Their Policies On ‘Competing Viewpoints’

Another day, another new bit of ugliness from the Trump Administration. What was first reported by MedPage Today appears to be the initial wave of attacks on medical journals for preferring scientific rigor to splashing around in the swampier parts of the marketplace of ideas.

A federal prosecutor sent a letter to a medical journal editor, probing whether the publication is “partisan” when it comes to “various scientific debates.”

Edward R. Martin Jr., U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, sent a list of questions to CHEST Editor-in-Chief Peter Mazzone, MD, MPH, of the Cleveland Clinic, asking how the journal handles “misinformation” and “competing viewpoints,” among other things.

MedPage Today has learned that at least two other journals have received similar letters.

The language is coded, but definitely not clever. Composed by a DOJ prosecutor perhaps best known for his hundred-plus appearances on Russian state-owned media outlets, the letter [PDF] is full of phrases that make it clear at least one federal prosecutor is interested in deterring scientific rebuttals to the parade of horrors that will be emanating from RFK Jr.’s Dept. of Health and Humans Services over the next few years.

Martin’s letter claims “more and more” scientific journals and publications are “conceding they are partisans in various scientific debates.” He alludes to possible federal crimes being committed by these journals if they are “advocating due to advertisement” (which Martin links to the postal code) or sponsorship (which Martin pretends might have something to do with federal fraud laws). In order to find targets for his prosecutorial attention, Martin asks every journal receiving this letter to respond to the following questions:

How do you assess your responsibilities to protect the public from misinformation?
How do you clearly articulate to the public when you have certain viewpoints that are influenced by your ongoing relationships with supporters, funders, advertisers, and others?
Do you accept articles or essays from competing viewpoints?
How do you assess the role played by government officials and funding organizations like the National Insitutes of Health in the development of submitted articles?
How do you handle allegations that authors of your work in your journals may have misled their readers?

I am also interested to now if publishers, journals, and organizations with which you work are adjusting their method of acceptance of competing viewpoints. Are there new norms being developed or authored?

These are pretty weird questions to be asking scientific journal publishers. These are exceptionally weird questions for a federal prosecutor to be asking scientific journal publishers. While there are certainly valid concerns about AI involvement in crafting scientific reports, along with some pay-to-play operations that undermine the scientific community in general, it’s generally accepted that these publishers usually publish work that has been subjected to peer review and scientific method best practices.

What this letter sounds like is a very vague threat that prosecutors will start hassling journals that refuse to publish unscientific garbage that appears to support the multiple conspiracy theories pushed by Trump, RFK Jr., and far too many of their supporters. It also suggests that if journals don’t cozy up to the Trump quacks, whatever NIH funding that still somehow exists post-DOGE will vanish completely. It would be worrying enough if this letter had been issued by the HHS. That it came from a federal prosecutor is legitimately horrifying.

Once again, the party of free speech and alleged participant in the marketplace of ideas is showing that it only thinks speech it agrees with should be “free” and that the marketplace of ideas should only offer up ideas it likes. At the very least, this letter has the chance to push some journals into self-censorship, limiting dissemination of studies and essays publishers know don’t align with the Trump Administration’s deep disdain for established scientific principles. And once that end of the idea marketplace begins to dry up, the administration will do all it can to fill the void in the market with bad science, bad ideas, and children’s corpses.