Exclusive: US veterans agency orders scientists not to publish in journals without clearance

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"VA Officials Restrict Publication of Research by Physicians and Scientists"

View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 7.2
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

Senior officials at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) have issued a directive that prohibits VA physicians and scientists from publishing research in medical journals or engaging with the public without prior approval from political appointees. This order, communicated in emails by Curt Cashour and John Bartrum, came shortly after the New England Journal of Medicine published a perspective piece by two VA pulmonologists. The article raised concerns about the negative impact of job cuts and contract cancellations on the health of veterans, particularly those affected by toxic exposures. The authors highlighted a disturbing rise in respiratory conditions among veterans, emphasizing the disconnect between legislative changes and the immediate health needs of patients. The directive, described as an attempt to enforce compliance with VA policies, has sparked criticism from various quarters, with many viewing it as a continuation of a broader trend of censorship under the Trump administration.

The response from the VA to the article was swift, indicating a heightened sensitivity to any potential negative exposure. Cashour's communication noted that his office had been delegated the authority to approve publications, and local directors were instructed to promptly notify Washington of any issues that could attract negative media attention. Despite the backlash, co-author Pavan Ganapathiraju asserted that their article adhered to VA regulations, which encourage publication in peer-reviewed journals. The controversy has fueled claims of a 'war on science' by the Trump administration, with critics pointing to significant cuts in research funding and an atmosphere of fear among scientists. The VA has historically been a critical hub for medical research, contributing significantly to advancements in healthcare, yet this recent directive threatens to stifle academic freedom and diminish the quality of research output, ultimately impacting the care provided to veterans. Experts warn that restricting communication within the VA may lead to adverse outcomes for veteran health and undermine the integrity of scientific inquiry within the agency.

TruthLens AI Analysis

The report highlights a significant shift in the communication policies of the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), revealing a potential suppression of scientific discourse. This new directive raises concerns about transparency, the flow of information, and the implications for veterans' healthcare.

Motivation Behind the Publication

The imposition of a clearance requirement for VA physicians and scientists to publish their findings could be seen as a tactic to control the narrative surrounding veterans' health issues. The timing of this directive, following a critical article in a prestigious medical journal, suggests an effort to manage public perception and mitigate backlash against the administration regarding healthcare policies.

Public Sentiment and Perception

This news is likely to foster distrust among veterans and the general public towards the VA and the Trump administration. The article authored by VA doctors underscores serious health concerns for veterans, which may lead to heightened anxiety about the administration's commitment to veterans' well-being. Such actions could provoke anger and mobilize advocacy groups focused on veterans' rights and health.

Concealment of Information

The directive could indicate an attempt to hide or downplay negative information regarding the VA's operations and the impact of recent budget cuts. By controlling what can be published, the VA may be trying to shield itself from criticism about how these changes affect veterans' access to care.

Manipulative Aspects

The manipulation level in this report can be seen as moderate to high. The directive serves not only to restrict scientific findings but also to protect the political image of the Trump administration. The language used in the emails reflects a clear intention to maintain a favorable public image at the expense of transparency.

Trustworthiness of the Information

The credibility of the report relies heavily on the authenticity of the internal communications obtained by the Guardian. Given the source's reputation, there is a reasonable basis for believing the information is accurate. However, the broader implications and motivations behind the directive warrant scrutiny.

Impacts on Society and Economy

This directive could lead to a chilling effect within the scientific community, particularly for those working in public health. It may discourage researchers from pursuing critical inquiries related to veterans' health, ultimately affecting the quality of care they receive. Economically, a decline in veterans' health could strain healthcare resources and increase government spending on health issues linked to service-related conditions.

Target Audience

This news likely resonates with veterans, healthcare professionals, and advocacy organizations focused on veterans' rights. It may also attract attention from those concerned about government transparency and scientific freedom.

Market Reactions

While the immediate impact on the stock market may be limited, companies involved in veterans' healthcare services could experience fluctuations based on public sentiment and potential policy changes. Investors may react to perceived risks associated with a lack of transparency in government agencies.

Geopolitical Context

The directive does not directly influence global power dynamics; however, it reflects broader trends of governmental control over scientific discourse, which could resonate in international discussions about freedom of expression and research integrity.

Use of AI in Reporting

There is no clear indication that AI played a role in crafting this article. The reporting style appears traditional and journalistic, focusing on factual recounting rather than algorithmic analysis. If AI were involved, it might have influenced how information was structured, but this remains speculative.

The analysis indicates that the article serves as a crucial examination of a political maneuver aimed at maintaining control over veterans' health narratives, raising essential questions about transparency and governmental accountability.

Unanalyzed Article Content

Senior officials at the US Department of Veterans Affairs have ordered that VA physicians and scientists not publish in medical journals or speak with the public without first seeking clearance from political appointees ofDonald Trump, the Guardian has learned.

The edict, laid down in emails on Friday byCurt Cashour, the VA’s assistant secretary for public and intergovernmental affairs, andJohn Bartrum, a senior adviser to VA secretary Doug Collins, came hours after the prestigious New England Journal of Medicinepublished a perspectiveco-authored by two pulmonologists who work for the VA in Texas.

“We have guidance for this,” wrote Cashour, a former Republican congressional aide and campaign consultant, attaching the journal article. “These people did not follow it.”

The article warned that cancelled contracts, layoffs and a plannedstaff reduction of 80,000 employeesin the nation’s largest integrated healthcare system jeopardizes the health of a million veterans seeking help for conditions linked to toxic exposure – ranging from Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange to veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan who developed cancer after being exposed to smoke from piles of flaming toxic waste.

“As pulmonologists in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), we have been seeing increasing numbers of veterans with chronic bronchitis, pulmonary fibrosis, asthma, and other respiratory conditions,” doctors Pavan Ganapathiraju and Rebecca Traylor wrote.

The authors, who practice at the VA in Austin, Texas, noted that in 2022 Congress dramatically expanded the number of medical conditions presumed to be linked to military service. “But legislation doesn’t care for patients,” they wrote, “people do”.

The article sparked an immediate rebuke from President Trump’s political appointees, according to internal emails obtained by the Guardian. “We have noticed a number of academic articles and press articles recently,” Bartrum wrote, attaching a copy of the journal article. “Please remind the field and academic community that they need to follow the VA policy.”

Cashour, the assistant secretary, wrote that approval for publication in national media was delegated to his office. Local and regional directors were to inform Washington “as soon as possible” when situations exist “that have the potential for negative national exposure”.

Multiple inquiries to Cashour and VA press secretary Peter Kasperowicz went unanswered by deadline.

Ganapathiraju told the Guardian that the article was in full compliance with the VA regulations, which state that employees are encouraged to publish in “peer-reviewed, professional or scholarly journals”. Coordination with public affairs officers is encouraged, but not required, when sharing personal or academic opinions, the rules say.

Ganapathiraju said neither he nor his co-author had yet faced punishment. “We have received emails and messages from other VAs across the country (including doctors, department chiefs, chief of medicines, and chief of staff) supporting our article,” he wrote in an email. “No communication from our local VA or from National.”

Still, VA workers and veterans advocates say Friday’s warnings fit a pattern of censorship by the Trump administration, which critics say is waging a “war on science”. Since taking office, Trump administration officials have cancelled billions of dollars in grants funding medical research at the National Institute of Health and the National Science Foundation. Nearly 2,000 leading scientists, including dozens of Nobel Prize winners,signed an open letterreleased in April saying science was being “decimated” by cuts to research and a growing “climate of fear” that put independent research at risk.

Trump issued an executive order on 23 May titled “Restoring Gold Standard Science.” It accused his predecessor, Joe Biden, of misusing scientific evidence when crafting policies on climate change, public health during the Covid-19 pandemic and other issues. Thousands of academicssigned a new open letterthat protested the move, arguing it opens the door to political interference.

On 28 May, the secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F Kennedy Jr, said he wasconsidering barringgovernment scientists from publishing in top journals, including the Journal of the American Medical Association, the Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine, calling these publications “corrupt”.

The Department of Veterans Affairs has long been one of the nation’s most important centers of medical research. Funded by Congress with nearly $1bn annually, VA scientists operate at 102 research sites and are engaged in 7,300 ongoing projects, while publishing more than 10,000 papers in scientific journals last year.

VA scientistsinventedthe nicotine patch and the pacemaker and developed the CT scan. The agency runs the National Center for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which has pioneered mental health treatments that benefit not only veterans but also rape victims and other survivors of natural disasters and violent crime.

Harold Kudler, a psychiatrist and researcher who served as national mental health policy lead for VA under the Obama and first Trump administrations said the rebuke to the pulmonologists’ article was “powerful in its impact and frightening in the threat it represents”.

It was “another attack on freedom of speech”, he said. “Veterans will suffer because of it. Plus, all research programs will take note.”

Back to Home
Source: The Guardian