HHS Initiative for New Medical Journals

A plan to establish new medical journals under the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was announced on May 28, 2025 by Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The announcement was made during a press conference with President Donald Trump. The initiative aims to provide a platform for federal scientists to publish taxpayer-funded research, addressing concerns about the editorial integrity of existing medical journals such as The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

Secretary Kennedy stated that federal government scientists, whose research is funded by taxpayers, should not submit their work to journals with questionable editorial practices. He cited allegations of corruption in these publications, specifically mentioning their publication of studies that were later found to be fraudulent or misleading. Examples include studies on the safety of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and hydroxychloroquine, which were influenced by pharmaceutical industry interests. Secretary Kennedy further noted that these journals have been criticized for political bias, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, when they allegedly prioritized narratives over scientific evidence.

The new journals will focus on peer-reviewed research from federal scientists at agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They will cover topics including public health, disease prevention, and medical innovation. HHS is exploring open-access models to ensure accessibility for policymakers, healthcare providers, and the public. The journals aim to provide a platform free from external editorial pressures, ensuring that taxpayer-funded research is disseminated transparently.

The development of the HHS journals involves establishing guidelines for submission, peer review, and publication to meet international standards. HHS will recruit editors, peer reviewers, and administrative staff. Consultations with federal scientists, academic institutions, and stakeholders are planned to ensure the journals meet scientific community needs. The timeline for launching the journals is under development. A 20% of the HHS budget is estimated to go into this project.

The initiative does not preclude federal scientists from publishing in other reputable journals that maintain high standards. It aims to offer an additional platform for research dissemination. The journals align with HHS’s broader health policy goals, including a proposed 59% reduction in prescription drug prices announced during the May 28 press conference.

Secretary Kennedy’s critique of existing journals centers on their alleged susceptibility to pharmaceutical industry influence and political bias. He highlighted specific issues, such as the publication of studies later deemed fraudulent, including those related to safety of mRNA vaccines and to hydroxychloroquine. He also pointed to the journals’ role in shaping public health narratives during the COVID-19 pandemic, that prioritized political agendas over scientific rigor. These concerns underpin the decision to create HHS-backed journals to ensure a transparent and unbiased platform for federal research.

Big Pharma’s heavy influence

The allegations of corruption are supported by several studies and incidents. Research suggests medical journals like The Lancet, NEJM, and JAMA may be corrupted by industry ties and biased research. A 2010 study in PloS Medicine, “Conflicts of Interest at Medical Journals: The Influence of Industry-Supported Randomised Trials on Journal Impact Factors and Revenue – Cohort Study” by Lundh et al analyzed six major journals, including The Lancet, NEJM, and JAMA, and looked at the proportion of industrial support in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from 1996–1997 and 2005–2006. Both periods showed that 32% of the NEJM trials, for example, were solely funded by industry. Industry-supported trials were more cited, inflating impact factors when included, which decreased when excluded, suggesting a reliance on industry funding for prestige.

Financial ties to Industry, like as Nature reported in 2010 that The Lancet earned 41% of its 2005-2006 income from reprint sales, while BMJ earned 16% from display advertising, creating conflicts of interest. JAMA and NEJM owners did not disclose financials, but tax returns suggested significant industry revenue.

Independent studies of good quality but with a result not pleasing the industry are difficult to get published at all in any of the Medical Journals, but if published, are often later retracted after preassure from industry, sometimes for reasons such as spelling mistakes. Studies with results that are positive for the Industry get lots of space and attention, regardeless of quality. One of the examples Secretary Kennedy mentioned, is from 2020, when The Lancet and NEJM were forced to retract COVID-19 papers due to data integrity issues. The paper, later proven to be fraudulent, got huge attention, and claimed to show that hydroxychloroquine increased deaths among COVID-19 patients. When the article was retracted the global impact had already been done, including trials of hydroxychloroquine on COVID-19 shutdown by WHO and media claiming the drug useless or dangerous while favoring mRNA-injections instead.

In 2015, Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, stated that “much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue,” citing small sample sizes, invalid analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest . This aligns with Secretary Kennedy’s critique of systemic issues and responds to reports of U.S. prosecutor letters to a couple of these Meical Journals, suggesting ongoing investigations .