The DOJ's Prescription for Science: Intimidation with a Side of Threats

'First they came for the scientists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a scientist...'

If you're wondering why we're opening with a variation of Pastor Niemöller's famous quote, stick around, folks. We've got ourselves a situation that would make George Orwell reach for his typewriter and furiously start a sequel.

Anatomy of Intimidation

Picture this: You're a respected medical journal editor, sipping your morning coffee, sorting through peer-reviewed articles about pulmonary diseases, when suddenly a letter arrives from the U.S. Department of Justice. Not a subscription request. Not a thank-you note for advancing medical science. Instead, it's a vague yet threatening inquiry questioning your editorial independence and suggesting you might be engaging in 'partisan' science.

That's exactly what happened to Dr. Peter Mazzone of CHEST Journal when they received a letter from Edward R. Martin Jr., the interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. The letter, dated April 14, 2025, opens with a bold assertion: '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.'

The letter then proceeds to ask five probing questions about how the journal handles 'misinformation,' whether they accept 'articles or essays from competing viewpoints,' and how they assess 'the role played by government officials and funding organizations like the National Institutes of Health.'

What's particularly concerning is that the letter doesn't cite a single specific example of partisan bias or misconduct. It's like being accused of a crime but not told what crime you allegedly committed. That's not oversight; that's intimidation.

And CHEST isn't alone. At least five major medical journals have confirmed receiving similar letters, including the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), JAMA, and Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The Broader Attack on Science

This isn't happening in isolation. These letters are part of a systematic campaign to control scientific discourse by the current administration. We've already seen the stifling of federal scientists' communications, slashing of studies about misinformation, vaccine communication, and LGBTQ+ health issues, and the requirement that scientists scrub language deemed 'woke' from their grants and research.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya have both publicly criticized medical journals, with Kennedy even threatening legal action. Bhattacharya helped start an alternative journal just before taking over at the NIH.

This isn't about ensuring scientific accuracy. It's about creating an atmosphere where scientists and medical journals self-censor out of fear. When Dr. Eric Rubin of NEJM noted that the letter mentioned their tax-exempt status, they weren't being paranoid in perceiving a threat. They were recognizing the playbook.

Why Medical Journals Matter

Let's take a moment to understand why this matters. Medical journals aren't just fancy newsletters for doctors. They're the bedrock of scientific advancement. Before a study gets published in a reputable journal like NEJM or CHEST, it undergoes rigorous peer review where experts in the field analyze the methodology, data, and conclusions for errors or problematic reasoning.

As NEJM Editor-in-Chief Dr. Rubin explained: 'We have a very rigorous review process. We use outside experts. We have internal editors who are experts in their fields as well. And we spend a lot of time choosing the right articles to publish and trying to get the message right. We think we're an antidote for misinformation.'

This isn't partisan; it's science. The scientific method doesn't care about your political affiliation. It cares about evidence, methodology, and reproducibility.

Science to Match Ideology: A Dangerous Precedent

What's particularly troubling about these letters is that they represent more than just intimidation—they reflect an attempt to shape scientific reality to match political ideology. This administration isn't merely trying to control the narrative; they're trying to enforce a view of what science 'should' say based on their moral and political commitments rather than evidence.

We've seen this playbook before. In the 19th century, pseudosciences like phrenology were used to 'scientifically prove' racist hierarchies. In Nazi Germany, 'racial science' was manufactured to support antisemitic policies. In the Soviet Union under Lysenko, genetics research was distorted to match communist ideology, leading to agricultural disasters.

When governments decide what scientific truth should be before the research is conducted, the result isn't science—it's propaganda with equations. Whether it's predetermining that vaccines cause autism (they don't), that climate change isn't real (it is), or that gender-affirming care doesn't work (extensive research shows it does), this approach fundamentally misunderstands how science functions.

Science is meant to follow evidence wherever it leads—not start with conclusions and work backward. When a U.S. Attorney sends threatening letters to medical journals, the message is clear: make your science match our politics, or else.

The Authoritarian Playbook

The vague nature of these letters is a feature, not a bug. As J.T. Morris, a lawyer at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, pointed out: 'Who knows? We've seen this administration take all sorts of action that doesn't have a legal basis and it hasn't stopped them. And so there's always a concern that the federal government and its officials like Ed Martin will step outside and abuse their authority.'

This is exactly how authoritarianism works. It's not always about explicit censorship. It's about creating an environment where institutions self-censor out of fear of reprisal. When a government official implies that your tax status might be at risk if you don't align with their preferred narrative, that's not regulation—that's coercion.

Consider how this approach mirrors tactics seen in authoritarian regimes: make vague threats, imply potential consequences without specifying them, and watch as institutions scramble to comply to avoid trouble. It's the 'nice scientific journal you've got there... would be a shame if something happened to it' approach to governance.

Debunking Misinformation

Now, let's address some claims that have been circulating about medical journals:

Claim: Medical journals are partisan organizations pushing political agendas.
Truth: Medical journals follow rigorous peer-review processes that evaluate research based on scientific merit, not political alignment. The goal is accuracy, not advocacy.

Claim: Journals suppress alternative viewpoints that don't align with their ideology.
Truth: Scientific journals reject papers that fail to meet scientific standards, not based on ideological disagreement. The peer review process specifically aims to eliminate bias by having multiple independent experts evaluate each submission.

Claim: There's a 'journal cartel' controlling what medical information reaches the public.
Truth: There are thousands of medical journals worldwide with diverse editorial boards. Competition between journals actually incentivizes the publication of groundbreaking research, not suppression.

It's worth noting that even conservative voices like Judge Glock of the Manhattan Institute, an anti-LGBTQ+ and conservative think tank, have stated: 'In general, the U.S. attorney shouldn't be concerning himself or herself with the position of these particular journals. They should not ask for information, and they should not be trying to encourage them to publish different types of editorials or change their editorial practices based on what a U.S. attorney feels is appropriate.'

I think it is worth noting that as philosophically and ideologically opposed as I am to everything the Manhattan Institute stands for, the fact that we can agree with them on this underscores just how universally bad this is, and just how concerned we should be.

In Conclusion

When the Department of Justice starts questioning scientific journals about their editorial practices without specific allegations of wrongdoing, we should all be concerned. This isn't about ensuring balanced coverage or protecting the public from misinformation. It's about controlling the narrative by intimidating the institutions we rely on for evidence-based information—and ultimately, reshaping scientific reality itself to match political ideology.

As Dr. Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, eloquently put it: 'This is a research ecosystem, and it is the working of that research ecosystem which has delivered these phenomenal breakthroughs over so many decades. And that is what's being attacked.'

The scientific community needs to stand united against this intimidation. Because when science becomes subordinate to politics, we all lose—especially when the next pandemic, climate disaster, or public health crisis arrives and we need trusted, independent scientific voices more than ever.

After all, the most dangerous form of misinformation isn't a retracted study—it's a government that treats scientific independence as a threat to be neutralized.

References

[1] MedPage Today. (2025, April 25). NEJM Gets Letter From DOJ: It's the fifth journal to confirm receiving a letter asking about alleged bias.

[2] U.S. Department of Justice. (2025, April 14). Letter from Edward R. Martin Jr. to Peter Mazzone, Editor-in-Chief, CHEST Journal.

[3] NBC News. (2025, April 19). U.S. attorney demands scientific journal explain how it ensures 'viewpoint diversity'.

[4] MedPage Today. (2025, April 24). NEJM Gets Letter From DOJ.

[5] NPR. (2025, May 2). Medical journals hit with threatening letters from Justice Department.

[6] NBC News. (2025, April 19). U.S. attorney demands scientific journal explain how it ensures 'viewpoint diversity'.

[7] NBC News. (2025, April 19). U.S. attorney demands scientific journal explain how it ensures 'viewpoint diversity'.

[8] NPR. (2025, May 2). Medical journals hit with threatening letters from Justice Department.

[9] NBC News. (2025, April 19). U.S. attorney demands scientific journal explain how it ensures 'viewpoint diversity'.

[10] MedPage Today. (2025, April 25). NEJM Gets Letter From DOJ.