NEW ORLEANS — Security officers and police removed five prominent diabetes researchers from the American Diabetes Association’s annual scientific sessions. They had handed out copies of an editorial published in one of the group’s own journals. The piece criticized Trump administration policies slashing biomedical research budgets.
The June 5, 2026, incident at the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center quickly spread through videos and statements. Shock rippled across the research community. The Scientist first detailed how organizers viewed the act as a code-of-conduct breach. (https://www.the-scientist.com/police-removed-prominent-scientists-from-the-ada-meeting-researchers-respond-74607)
Yet the move backfired. It amplified the very message the researchers sought to share. And it forced the ADA to issue an apology days later.
Confrontation Over an Editorial
Justin Ryder, an obesity and diabetes researcher at Northwestern University and Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, stood among those escorted out. He described the scene in detail to MedPage Today. Officers shoved him after he refused to stop distributing the material. “It was at this time that the security personnel and police became much more aggressive shoving me and removed me from the hall,” Ryder said. (https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/121619)
Steven Kahn joined him. The University of Washington diabetes specialist also serves as editor-in-chief of Diabetes Care, the journal that carried the editorial titled “Misguided Brushes of a Pen Continue to Dismantle and Destroy Biomedical Research in the United States.” Kahn helped write it. He expressed surprise at the ADA’s reaction. The organization had invited an NIH official to speak on funding. The researchers wanted to present a counter view.
Other scientists removed included Aaron Kelly, Desmond Schatz, and Irl Hirsch. All held respected positions in the field. Their removal came after repeated warnings. ADA staff first asked them to stop. Some continued. Security then stepped in. Louisiana State Police officers completed the escort. No arrests occurred. But the researchers were told they could not return or face charges.
The editorial pulled no punches. It outlined how federal budget cuts and policy shifts damaged research infrastructure. It warned of long-term harm to diabetes care and innovation. Distribution happened both inside session rooms and in lobby areas. That violated ADA rules requiring prior approval for any materials. Those rules limit such activity to the exhibit hall.
ADA’s media team issued a statement shortly after. “These attendees were escorted out by our onsite event security because they demonstrated behavior not consistent with this code of conduct,” it read. “They were respectfully given the opportunity to cease this behavior and chose not to which is why they were escorted out.” The team stressed the action targeted the method of distribution. Not the content itself.
But many disagreed. They saw it as censorship. The editorial had passed peer review in an ADA journal. Its lead author sat on the organization’s own editorial board. How could sharing it trigger police involvement?
Craig Kaplan, a biologist at the University of Pittsburgh, spoke out. He called the response contrary to the ADA’s mission. “If being in the good graces of the current administration means you can’t express your scientific opinion, then your organization has been corrupted,” he told reporters. Similar views came from Mark Atkinson, the conference scientific sessions chair at the University of Florida, and Jennifer Green, the ADA’s president-elect at Duke University. Both resigned in protest.
Jay Bhattacharya, then NIH director, had been scheduled as keynote speaker but withdrew. His absence added fuel. The editorial referenced his role and broader administration moves, including staff reductions and shifts away from certain research priorities.
Reactions poured in fast. A Change.org petition gathered signatures demanding an apology. Posts on X, formerly Twitter, showed video clips of the removals. One clip captured officers guiding the scientists away while attendees looked on. Discussions highlighted First Amendment concerns even though the convention center counts as private space during the event.
Apology, Resignations, and Lingering Questions
On June 10, 2026, ADA CEO Charles Henderson released a video statement. He apologized directly to the five members. “We sincerely apologize that it escalated to a point that distracted from the science, collaboration, and community that bring us together each year,” Henderson said, according to coverage in Science. (https://www.science.org/content/article/diabetes-society-officials-resign-after-removal-trump-protestors-conference)
He announced an internal review. The ADA reaffirmed its nonpartisan stance. It pointed to its nonprofit status and the need to avoid actions that could jeopardize tax-exempt standing. Yet the explanation satisfied few.
STAT News captured the mood four days later. Leaders in diabetes research and practice condemned the handling. “It didn’t have to be this way,” one unnamed senior figure told the outlet. The aggressive response and subsequent communications worsened the situation, they added. (https://www.statnews.com/2026/06/09/american-diabetes-association-uproar-over-expulsion-of-members/)
The New York Times noted the researchers re-entered through another door only to face security again. The episode played out publicly. Attendees scheduled to present later that weekend found themselves barred. Frustration mounted.
By mid-July, tensions had not cooled. Ted Kyle, writing for ConscienHealth, reported the ADA blocked publication of papers analyzing the event. “Transparency? Integrity? Not apparent,” he posted on X. The organization’s decision to suppress further discussion only deepened distrust.
Justin Blumenstiel, a geneticist at the University of Kansas, voiced a wider fear. “I’m very worried that we’re going to lose our status as a leader in science.” His comment reflected anxiety across biomedical fields. Federal cuts had already strained labs. Now professional societies appeared unwilling to host open debate.
The BMJ covered the story internationally. It linked the removals to broader criticism of U.S. science policy under the administration. Police in New Orleans “forcibly removed” the experts for distributing the paper critique, the article stated. (https://www.bmj.com/content/393/bmj-2026-511576)
Diabetes affects more than 38 million Americans. Research into better treatments, prevention, and obesity-related complications drives much of the ADA’s work. The irony struck many. An organization dedicated to advancing science had called police on scientists sharing peer-reviewed concerns about funding that directly affects that mission.
So what happens next? The internal review may recommend policy tweaks. Yet the damage lingers. Trust between the ADA and its research base has frayed. Other societies watch closely. How they handle similar protests could set precedents for years.
Ryder captured the moment’s significance in one short phrase. Censorship in any form is disturbing. The scientific community agrees. The editorial’s core argument — that complacency threatens American leadership in biomedicine — gained new visibility precisely because of the ADA’s response. Actions intended to quiet dissent instead broadcast the message further. That outcome may prove the most lasting part of this New Orleans episode.
WebProNews is an iEntry Publication