Medical Journals Face “Harassment” Allegations from the Department of Justice

At least three medical journals have received correspondence from the U.S. Department of Justice, raising questions about their editing practices and urging them to maintain their independence.

The Lancet, a prominent British medical journal that did not receive one of these letters, published an editorial condemning the inquiries as “harassment” and threats, stating that American science has been “harshly detached” under the Trump administration.

Recently, Interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin for the District of Columbia contacted the Chest Journal, which focuses on chest medicine, suggesting it has a partisan bias. The letter included inquiries about measures needed to combat misinformation, incorporating various perspectives.

This communication sparked outrage from the First Amendment group and several scientists, who expressed concerns that such law enforcement actions could undermine academic freedom and free speech. The letter encouraged the journal to clarify that its publisher, the American College of Chest Physicians, “supports the journal’s editorial independence.”

This week, the New England Journal of Medicine confirmed to NBC News that it had also received a similar letter from an interim U.S. attorney.

In a response shared with NBC News, the journal’s editor-in-chief, Dr. Eric Rubin, defended its rights as an independent publisher, emphasizing their strict peer review and editing process to ensure the objectivity and reliability of the research published. “We uphold their First Amendment rights to editorial independence and free expression in medical journals,” Rubin stated. “The journal remains committed to fostering academic scientific dialogue and supporting authors, readers, and patients.”

The third journal, Obstetrics and Gynecology, also confirmed receiving a letter from Martin.

“Obstetrics and Gynecology editorially operates independently from ACOG, although we share the mission of improving outcomes for individuals needing obstetric and gynecological care,” a representative from the American University of Obstetrics and Gynecology remarked in an emailed statement. “We take pride in our journal’s focus on scientific data and patient-centered, respectful, evidence-based care.”

MedPage Today, a medical industry news outlet, first reported the existence of a new DOJ letter.

The DC office of the Department of Justice did not respond to NBC News’ request for comment.

Meanwhile, The Lancet, which has been publishing for over 200 years, adopted a more assertive tone. In a scathing editorial in solidarity with other journals, it described the letter from the Justice Department as “harassment” within the broader context of the Trump administration’s “systematic dismantling of U.S. scientific infrastructure.”

“This is a blatant attempt to intimidate journals and infringe upon their rights to independent editorial oversight. The Lancet and other medical journals are being targeted by the Trump administration,” the editor remarked. “Medical journals should not expect to be spared from the administration’s attacks on science, as institutions like the NIH, CDC, and academic medical centers are also being affected.”

Scientific journals are essential for disseminating new discoveries and insights among colleagues. Some journals are managed by specialized experts, while others are published by organizations with a focus on science. A reputable journal ensures that research undergoes thorough peer review, where external experts appraise it for errors and research quality.

The scrutiny of scientific journals occurs as the Trump administration has faced reductions in funding and staffing.

NBC News inquired with several major scientific and medical journal groups regarding whether they received similar letters from the Department of Justice.

Representatives from Science, Elsevier, Nature, and JAMA, the medical journal of the American Medical Association, did not reply to requests for comment.

Wiley Publishing Company acknowledged receipt of the letter from an interim U.S. attorney but did not provide further details.

“We remain committed to the highest standards of editorial independence, academic rigor, and publication ethics,” a Wiley spokesperson stated. “Our journal evaluates submissions based on their scientific merits and collaborates closely with social partners to ensure a wider perspective contributes to the advancement of knowledge.”