Here’s Why We’re Boycotting the American Diabetes Association

Why are members of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) boycotting their own professional society? Let me explain.

The ADA is a charitable organization, but its thousands of “members” are really just subscribers. Professional members pay hundreds of dollars for membership (up to $320/year) and as much as $725 in registration fees to attend the ADA’s annual meeting (not including hotel and travel). They also volunteer often significant amounts of time to lead guideline development and educational events, organize the annual meeting, and run its journals. But the organization does not have any responsibilities it owes to members. There is no formal process for airing grievances, no elected member representatives, and no mechanism to bring concerns to the board of directors.

It is this lack of accountability that has brought us to this current situation: over 1,100 ADA members and supporters are boycotting the organization. Diabetes Care, the ADA’s flagship journal, which is member-run, is not taking submissions. Grant reviews, fundraisers, and educational activities have stopped. Scientists have ceased planning activities for the ADA’s annual meeting, which is usually attended by thousands of professionals and with major sponsorship by pharma and medical device companies.

How did we end up in this situation? In April 2026, the editors of Diabetes Care, including myself, published an editorial critical of the Trump administration policies that would drastically cut funding to the NIH. Before it could be published, the ADA (our publisher) required that we add disclaimers to the article, presumably to distance the ADA from the content. On June 5, at the ADA’s annual scientific meeting in New Orleans, five physicians and scientists handed out reprints of the published editorial, coinciding with the ADA’s keynote address by an NIH official supportive of the administration’s policies. The scientists were removed by armed security and threatened with arrest if they returned.

The removal of professionals from their own scientific meeting was widely covered in the national press. Not reported in the press: The ADA also cancelled the annual in-person meetings of the Diabetes Care editorial board and associate editors, scheduled to occur during and following the conference.

The ADA offered three different interpretations of the events: 1) the five scientists violated codes of conduct; 2) they lacked permission to distribute the materials; and 3) their actions threatened the ADA’s nonprofit status. After the conference ended, the ADA’s CEO issued an apology video and promised an “independent review of the events.“

The ADA subsequently censored publication of first-hand accounts of the events, and opinion pieces written by the professionals who had been removed from the meeting and others, including former ADA board members. The rationale provided to us over email for the censorship was that publication would “risk compromising the [review of events] and the integrity and editorial standards of Diabetes Care.” The ADA also censored a separate editorial focused on scientific freedom, that was accepted for publication in Diabetes, Obesity, and Cardiometabolic CARE, a different journal published by the ADA.

The ADA promised an “arms-length” review of the events of June 5 but then formed a committee chaired by and including its own board members. After concluding its investigation, the ADA issued a press release stating the five attendees “disrupted the event.” Puzzlingly, the ADA then reversed course a few days later in another press release stating there were additional findings.

This is what brings us to this boycott. After 4 months, we are no closer to understanding the events of June 5. The ADA has not answered critical questions: Who authorized immediate use of armed security rather than speaking with the individuals handing out the editorials? Why did the ADA leadership ignore emails and calls from the expelled scientists, seeking to learn what they could do to have their badges reinstated and participate in the conference? Why were publications in Diabetes Care censored?

The ADA is an important and influential organization that drives clinical guidelines, national policy, and research. None of us want this boycott but we have no other mechanism to force change.

To move forward, the ADA needs to answer our questions. Its leadership needs to take responsibility for its actions. The ADA needs to embrace the exchange of ideas and support scientific discourse. It needs to restore full editorial independence to Diabetes Care. And it needs to regain the trust of its professional members.

The diabetes community is watching. So is every medical society.