American Diabetes Association Faces Renewed Scrutiny as Editors Post Blocked Op-Eds Revealing Alleged "Ambush" and Deepening Internal Rift
A month after the American Diabetes Association (ADA) faced widespread condemnation for the ejection of five prominent scientists from its annual meeting in New Orleans, the controversy has reignited with the public release of an editorial and seven accompanying opinion articles that the ADA allegedly refused to publish. These new documents, posted on the preprint server Zenodo by the deputy editors of Diabetes Care, the association’s flagship journal, introduce deeply troubling details, including an accusation that ADA leadership orchestrated a "premeditated ambush" involving security and local police against the scientists. This latest development exacerbates an already strained relationship between the ADA’s administration and its scientific and editorial community, raising profound questions about academic freedom, organizational governance, and the role of scientific societies in public discourse.
The Genesis of the Dispute: A Chronology of Controversy
The initial incident occurred on June 5, 2026, during the ADA’s annual Scientific Sessions in New Orleans. Five leading diabetes researchers—Dr. Steven Kahn, editor-in-chief of Diabetes Care and professor of medicine at the University of Washington; Dr. Desmond Schatz, former ADA President and professor at the University of Florida; Dr. Aaron Kelly, pediatrics professor at the University of Minnesota; Dr. Justin Ryder of Northwestern University; Dr. Irl Hirsch, also of the University of Washington; and Dr. Maureen Gannon of Vanderbilt University Medical Center—were forcibly removed from the conference venue. Their offense: distributing reprints of an editorial, "Misguided Brushes of a Pen Continue to Dismantle," which had been published in Diabetes Care in April. This editorial sharply criticized the Trump administration’s perceived attacks on scientific research, particularly its impact on the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
The scientists were distributing the editorial outside the conference’s opening speech, which was to be delivered by Jay Bhattacharya, then head of the NIH under the Trump administration, who later canceled, with senior NIH official Rick Woychik taking his place. Within minutes, police reportedly escorted the scientists out, confiscated their conference badges, and threatened them with arrest if they attempted to return. Accounts from the scene indicated that at least one scientist was physically shoved. Louisiana State Police later confirmed to media outlets, including The New York Times, that their actions were taken at the explicit request of the ADA. Subsequently, the ADA barred all five scientists from the remainder of the conference.
The immediate aftermath saw a swift and vehement public outcry. The scientific community, leveraging platforms like Twitter/X and BlueSky, voiced strong disapproval of the ADA’s heavy-handed response. This digital backlash significantly amplified the reach of the April editorial, driving a sharp increase in its page views. The controversy triggered a wave of resignations, including that of the ADA president-elect and Mark Atkinson, chair of the Scientific Sessions Meeting Planning Committee. A fiery letter, signed by more than 40 ADA officials, condemned the decision as "outrageous" and dismissed the justifications as "unpersuasive" and "fatuous nonsense," asserting that the community was "overwhelmingly repulsed." An open letter to the ADA, titled "Shame on You," echoed calls for an apology and garnered over 7,500 signatures, underscoring the depth of dissatisfaction within the broader diabetes community.
Initially, the ADA’s media team attempted to justify the removals by citing a violation of the conference code of conduct regarding unauthorized material distribution. In an email to members, the association stated the action was "not because of the viewpoints expressed in those materials." Days later, the organization, a 501(c)(3) non-profit, shifted its defense, asserting compliance with federal regulations that necessitate "maintaining a strictly nonpartisan environment at all organizational events." However, federal IRS guidelines clarify that 501(c)(3) status does not restrict leaders of organizations from sharing political views in a personal capacity or from speaking on important public policy issues, suggesting a misinterpretation or misapplication of the rules.
Amid escalating negative media coverage and internal dissent, ADA CEO Charles Henderson posted a video statement days later, apologizing for the organization’s decision. Henderson stated, "What transpired is not reflective of who I am, the values I hold, or the way I was raised." He pledged to "work hard to bring our community back together" and commissioned a "thorough independent review of the events that occurred as well as the policies, procedures, and decision-making process that guided our actions." This apology, while welcomed by some, was seen by others as insufficient, particularly given its delivery via video rather than a formal, written statement directly addressing the aggrieved parties.
Unveiling New Details: The Blocked Preprint Articles
Despite Henderson’s apology and promise of review, the "New Orleans Five" and their allies contend that little tangible progress has been made in the month since the incident. They report no meetings with ADA leadership, no official apology beyond the video, no exoneration of the scientists, and crucially, no accountability for the ADA staff involved in the decision-making process to forcibly remove them. This vacuum of action prompted the deputy editors of Diabetes Care, Elizabeth Selvin and Cheryl A.M. Anderson, to take an extraordinary step: they posted an editorial and seven accompanying opinion articles to Zenodo, a public preprint server, after the ADA leadership explicitly refused to publish them in Diabetes Care. These articles, now available as a single PDF file, provide critical new perspectives and allegations.
Among the most serious claims comes from John Buse, a professor at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine and a signatory to the preprint articles, who now states he believes "the ADA actions were a premeditated attack on Steven Kahn and other attendees" that pose "an existential threat to the ADA." This allegation is supported by specific details within the preprint. Dr. Desmond Schatz, one of the ejected scientists, reportedly texted Chief Scientific and Medical Officer Rita Kalyani before the meeting, advising her to contact Kahn to clarify permissible locations for distributing the editorial, emphasizing that the activity "should not in any way be disruptive." Kalyani reportedly responded that she was on a plane and would address it upon landing, but according to the preprint, she never followed up. This lack of communication, coupled with the subsequent heavy-handed response, lends credence to the idea of a deliberate setup.
Further evidence cited in the preprint points to a calculated operation. As Kahn, Kelly, Ryder, and Schatz were being removed, a police officer reportedly asked the head of conference security if "that was sufficient." The security officer then requested "one more badge," directing them to remove Gannon, who had been part of a group distributing flyers. When Gannon sought to speak with ADA leadership to resolve any misunderstanding, the head of security explicitly stated that this was what "the client" (referring to the ADA) had instructed them to do. Buse interprets this as clear evidence of an "ambush," where ADA leadership knew precisely what was going to happen and chose confrontation over accommodation.
The roots of the current conflict appear to run deeper than the immediate incident, extending back to a 90-minute session organized in 2025 by Selvin and Anderson titled, "How Do We Fix a Broken Health Care System?" Among the panelists was Congresswoman Kim Schrier (D-WA), a pediatrician with Type 1 diabetes. According to Selvin and Anderson, months before the session, ADA leadership objected to it being "unbalanced" and requested the inclusion of "a congressperson from across the aisle" and other speakers to provide "opposing views." When this proved impractical, the ADA approved the original session but notably did not advertise it, a decision that foreshadowed the tensions over political discourse. Selvin and Anderson maintained that the session was not partisan, focusing on bipartisan efforts to reduce drug costs, congressional testimonies, and the potential harm of NIH funding cuts—precisely the kind of advocacy that the ADA itself would later embrace.
The preprint also highlights a concerning pattern of disengagement from ADA leadership. Selvin and Anderson reported that in the wake of the June 5 ousters, the ADA leadership canceled the scheduled annual in-person meetings with the Diabetes Care editorial board and associate editors. This cancellation is particularly significant as these meetings represent "the only opportunity we have all year to connect face-to-face with the full editorial team," further isolating the journal’s leadership. The deputy editors also noted the profound irony of the ADA’s subsequent actions: "Now, with a public relations crisis firm in tow, the ADA has emailed advocacy messages opposing federal policies and is taking strong stances on proposed changes that would be harmful to diabetes patients and research. These are the very things we have been writing about in the journal. The irony is not lost on us." This suggests a selective embrace of advocacy, prioritizing public image over internal editorial independence.
Mark Atkinson’s opinion piece further elucidates the internal turmoil. As chair of the Scientific Sessions Meeting Planning Committee, Atkinson resigned following the June 5 events. He was involved in face-to-face discussions where he advocated for an apology, not merely a defense of the ADA’s actions. Atkinson had to leave the meeting early, assuming he would review any final statement. Instead, "a substantially different letter was released, bearing my name and that of the ADA’s chief executive officer," a version he would not have agreed to. His resignation, though difficult, was a matter of principle, stemming from a loss of confidence in the organization’s processes.
Broader Implications: Academic Freedom, Governance, and Trust
The unfolding crisis at the American Diabetes Association has significant implications for academic freedom, organizational governance, and the trust placed in scientific societies. At its core, this incident represents a critical struggle over editorial independence. The ADA’s refusal to publish articles submitted by its own journal’s deputy editors, coupled with the alleged "ambush" of scientists distributing a previously published editorial, sends a chilling message about the limits of scholarly discourse within professional organizations. The ability of scientists to critique public policy that impacts their research and patient care is fundamental to scientific integrity and public health advocacy. When a society suppresses such voices, it risks undermining its own mission and alienating its most dedicated members.
The ADA’s initial justification based on its 501(c)(3) non-profit status highlights a broader misunderstanding or deliberate misapplication of federal regulations. IRS guidelines clearly permit non-profit organizations to engage in advocacy on public policy issues relevant to their mission, and individual members or leaders are free to express personal political views, provided these are not construed as official organizational endorsements of political candidates. The ADA’s argument that distributing a critical editorial—even one published in its own journal—constituted a partisan act violating its non-profit status appears to be a flawed interpretation that unnecessarily stifles legitimate scientific and policy commentary. This incident could prompt other scientific societies to review their own policies on advocacy and member expression, ensuring they strike a balance between maintaining non-profit status and fostering open scientific debate.
The widespread backlash, including resignations and open letters, points to a severe erosion of trust in the ADA’s leadership and governance. The call for a "thorough independent review" by CEO Henderson was a necessary step, but the lack of visible progress, accountability, or engagement with the affected scientists a month later raises questions about the sincerity and effectiveness of this promise. The "New Orleans Five" have outlined clear demands: a transparent investigation, the establishment of formal processes to address professional membership concerns, greater visibility in patient advocacy, and a commitment to standing behind its journal editors, including removing any disclaimers from published editorials that suggest organizational distance from the content. Failure to address these concerns robustly could lead to further resignations, diminished membership, and a weakened capacity for the ADA to fulfill its crucial mission of fighting diabetes.
Ultimately, this controversy underscores the vital role that scientific societies play not just in advancing research but also in safeguarding the principles of academic freedom and responsible advocacy. The ADA stands at a critical juncture. Buse, in his preprint article, expressed hope for an "awakening of the spirit of the science and medicine community who founded this organization 85 years ago." He believes that with renewed focus, "the ADA can emerge stronger. That will require a reworking of governance and engagement to align strategy with mission." The path forward demands transparency, accountability, and a reaffirmation of the core values that empower scientists to speak truth to power, especially when public health and scientific integrity are at stake. The continued controversy suggests that the healing process for the American Diabetes Association, and the broader scientific community it serves, is far from over.
