October 22, 2026
FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT TO THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION
BY THE AUDIT & GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE
INTRODUCTION
The Audit & Governance Committee’s Role
The Audit & Governance Committee (“AGC”) is the official Bylaws committee of the ADA that is tasked with investigations and making recommendations about whistleblower and other complaints concerning staff and volunteers at all levels of the Association. The AGC regularly oversees audits, alleged conflicts of interest, governance issues and reviews any allegations involving ADA leadership1. The AGC was directed by the ADA’s Board of Directors to review the events leading up to, surrounding, and following the June 5, 2026 incident at Scientific Sessions involving law enforcement and several attendees.
The Committee is wholly independent of those committees or individuals involved with planning, implementing, oversight and/or decision-making regarding the 2026 Scientific Sessions or the events at issue. None of the AGC’s members served on the Scientific Sessions Planning Committee or any of the staff or volunteer committees involved with planning or presenting the programs or planning logistics in any way.
The AGC’s findings are the sole responsibility of the Committee members, who do not hold staff or other positions with the Association, and a majority of the AGC’s members do not serve on the ADA Board of Directors. None had any role in planning, operations or security for Scientific Sessions. No AGC member has any familial, financial or personal interest in the investigation or the ADA. They are professionals who have dedicated much of their lives and careers to fighting diabetes, often on behalf of the ADA, and are distressed by the events that took place in New Orleans.
Charge by the Board of Directors
Within days of the events in New Orleans on June 5, 2026, the ADA’s Board of Directors charged the AGC with conducting a swift but thorough review and investigation of the facts and circumstances leading up to:
- the selection of the 2026 Scientific Sessions Keynote Speaker;
- the ADA Staff’s planning and preparation for the conference, including any advance notice that may have been given that there could be protests of, and related to, the Keynote Speaker, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Director of the National Institutes of Health (“NIH”);
- the events that occurred on June 5th, including the request by security personnel that certain attendees leave the presentation hall and return their conference badges; and
- the post-incident actions and communications by the ADA staff and leadership.
Embedded in those areas of inquiry were a request to review the scientists’ allegations that their constitutional rights were infringed upon. Also, the committee understood that many, including attendees and board members, wanted to know who, if anyone, at the ADA “called the New Orleans Police on the scientists at Scientific Sessions?”
The Investigation
The Investigation’s Methodology:
Conducted by AGC, composed of two volunteer Board members - Chris Ralston (chair) and Otis Kirksey - along with three volunteer non-Board members, all having held past ADA leadership positions - Gretchen Youssef, past President, Healthcare and Education, Francisco Prieto, past Board member and past-Chair of the National Advocacy Committee, and David Herrick, past Chair of the Board.
AGC staff liaison Charlotte Carter promptly recused herself from the investigation and had no role in meetings related to the investigation, interviews or findings.
31 people were interviewed, some of them multiple times.
Those interviewed include:
- Multiple members of the Scientific Sessions Planning Committee;
- The 5 attendees removed from the meeting as well as witnesses who were near them or with them at the time;
- Convention Center security vendor, including the owner and a key staff member who were onsite June 5, 2026 in New Orleans;
- ADA leadership, including the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Scientific and Medical Officer, and Chief Advocacy Officer.
- Other witnesses and numerous ADA staff and volunteers.
All interviews were conducted by at least 3 AGC members to ensure that information provided by interviewees would be faithfully captured and interpreted and to ensure that at least one non-ADA Board member representative of the AGC was on each call.
All testimony relied upon was either uncontradicted, corroborated by multiple witnesses or supported by written and/or digital documents.
Videos, emails, text messages, news articles and published editorials were all examined.
Scientific Sessions Planning Committee Chair, Mark Atkinson2, PhD, was invited to be interviewed by the AGC. After multiple requests, Dr. Atkinson either declined or stopped responding to the interview requests.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Planning for the American Diabetes Association’s 2026 Scientific Sessions
From the programming and logistics standpoint, the Scientific Sessions planning in 2026 proceeded much as it had in past years3.
The Scientific Sessions Planning Committee is composed of 34 members, including clinicians, researchers, diabetes care and education specialists, dietitians, psychologists, physicians, nurses and others; it was led by Mark Atkinson, PHD, the Planning Committee Chair4.
As in recent years, the ADA leadership and planners sought a keynote speaker who was prominent, influential and/or who held insightful information to impart to the attendees to “kick off” the conference. Among the names mentioned in early 2026, as in 2025 (by Dr. Steven Kahn and other leading scientists at that time, according to multiple accounts relayed to the AGC), was Director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya5.
It should be noted that the Scientific Sessions Planning Committee Chair, Mark Atkinson, was consulted about ideas for keynote speakers and enthusiastically supported the decision to invite Dr. Bhattacharya6. The final decision was a unanimous decision of the ADA leadership team.
On a call with multiple representatives of the ADA staff and executive team, Dr. Bhattacharya was invited and agreed to deliver the keynote address at the 2026 Scientific Sessions.
Dr. Atkinson expressed excitement about Dr. Bhattacharya’s acceptance of the invitation to deliver the keynote address at Scientific Sessions and stated to an ADA staff member that he would “take the heat” for the decision7.
The ADA staff and Scientific Sessions Planning Committee made arrangements finalizing the plans for the Keynote Presentation and issued a public announcement on March 19, 2026 that Dr. Bhattacharya would be the 2026 Keynote Speaker8.
The political environment, particularly related to scientific research, was tense and became more tense in the days leading up to Scientific Sessions. On May 29, just 7 days prior to the event, the Office of Management and Budget published “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance”, proposing changes to 2 CFR Part 200, the government-wide framework for federal grants9. The proposal would strengthen centralized oversight and align grantmaking with administration priorities. Many in the scientific community viewed this as an assault on scientific integrity, peer review, and fair access to scientific funding from the federal government.
As the largest non-governmental funder of Diabetes related research, the ADA’s Advocacy Division issued a request on June 3 to all ADA advocates to use the required federal comment period to respond to and oppose these changes.
At the same time, security concerns were increasingly top of mind with ADA leadership. Since the December 2024 murder of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson, high profile healthcare organizations have been particularly concerned about safety. Since the ADA has always conducted Scientific Sessions without intrusive security measures, such as metal detectors and bag checks, ADA leadership had a heightened concern with both personal safety and the safety of attendees and staff since the NIH Director was scheduled to attend.
ADA’s Chief Scientific and Medical Officer, Dr. Rita Kalyani, was particularly concerned since she was to be on stage with Dr. Bhattacharya in her role as moderator of the session. Dr. Kalyani had voiced to other leaders that she was considering a protective vest and that she was extremely anxious about safety prior to the session10.
ADA’s security vendor customarily hires 2 off-duty, uniformed police officers for the duration of every Scientific Sessions, regardless of the speakers or the location of the event. This is done to protect the thousands of attendees who gather each year. For the New Orleans event, the security vendor followed the same custom, hiring 2 off-duty New Orleans Police Department officers for the duration of the event. This was consistent throughout recent years of the conference and is standard practice for conferences of this size11.
ADA Operations took two additional steps prior to the keynote session to ensure the safety of speakers, attendees and staff: First, they took the recommendation of their security vendor that the vendor hire 2 additional off-duty New Orleans Police Department officers to be positioned on either side of the keynote presentation stage; second, they took the recommendation of the security vendor to remove the stairs between the stage and the audience portion of the room, to make it more difficult should an individual attempt to storm the stage during the presentation.
Peter Alexan, a member of the security staff, after consulting with ADA operations staff, stationed the two additional officers on either side of the keynote stage (in Hall F) and the other two officers near the doors to the auditorium. Mr. Alexan made other staffing security assignments with his team and hired security12.
The 2 additional officers brought in for June 5 were contractually required by the New Orleans Convention Center due to the expected presence of a federal official, and increased the total hired police to 4, for the day of June 5 only 13.
Additionally, Louisiana State troopers were onsite at the convention center at the direction of the Governor, not of ADA or its security vendor, due to heightened safety concerns following the 2025 terrorist attack on Bourbon Street14. They did not communicate with, nor take direction from ADA staff, although they had authority to assist and participate with contracted Convention Center security.
On March 19, 2026, Dr. Aaron Kelly wrote an email to two members of ADA’s Advocacy Division voicing his displeasure at the selection of Dr. Bhattacharya, Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), as the keynote speaker15. This was the first time anyone voiced concern, opposition or objection, about Dr. Bhattacharya to the Planning committee or to ADA leadership. That day was also significant because at the time the first objection was received, Dr. Bhattacharya had already been invited, had accepted and made arrangements to attend. Unless the ADA were to “disinvite” the NIH Director, the ADA had few good options for backtracking on the Keynote Speaker selection at that point.
In his email, Dr. Aaron Kelly also stated: “I am excited to attend and disrupt and protest this presentation and plan to mobilize my colleagues to do the same. Feel free to pass this message on to C. Henderson and whoever else made this ill-advised decision.” Dr. Justin Ryder was copied as a recipient of the email, although Dr. Ryder stated to the AGC that he was not the intended audience for the comment about “...disrupt and protest…”
The ADA’s Code of Conduct as of June 5, 202616, which applied to attendees at Scientific Sessions (and who were required in the registration process to agree to its terms) was accessible from the ADA’s website and stated that all attendees must act in a “respectful and professional manner17.” It further prohibits conduct that is disruptive, “such as protesting,” stating that such actions will not be tolerated and are “grounds for removal.”
The Code of Conduct, however, does not specifically address the distribution of written/printed materials by attendees. The ADA does have specific prohibitions against the distribution of commercial/marketing/P.R. materials outside of the exhibit hall, but these prohibitions are only detailed in the exhibitor agreement.
ADA Staff Preparation for Potential Disruption and Protests at Scientific Sessions
In addition to stating that he intended to disrupt and protest, Dr. Kelly also promised to “mobilize” others to do the same18. From the ADA staff’s perspective, the safety of approximately 11,000 attendees, speakers and staff were of serious concern in a charged political environment19.
In the weeks following Dr. Kelly’s March 19, 2026 email, senior ADA staff had conversations and meetings with Dr. Kelly to understand his views, to work to find a solution, and to determine whether alternative options existed. Simone Grapini-Goodman (CDMO) and Rita Kalyani (CSMO), for example, spoke with Dr. Kelly and met with Jacque Sebany (Consultant) to manage any communications implications.
Dr. Mark Atkinson, when asked about his views on Dr. Bhattacharya’s potential for controversy, pushed back, recalling the very positive response received after Dr. Bhattacharya appeared at an event at University of Florida, where Dr. Atkinson is employed20.
The Events of June 5th
A few days before the conference, Dr. Bhattacharya withdrew from the keynote appearance, and Dr. Richard Woychik, Senior Advisor to the NIH Director for the Make America Healthy Again Strategy was selected by NIH to speak in his place.
On the morning of June 5, Chief Executive Officer Charles Henderson was walking toward Hall F to meet and introduce the speaker. A witness reported that Dr. Kelly approached him quickly. Security personnel held Dr. Kelly back while other personnel directed Mr. Henderson toward the presentation hall.
According to consistent testimony from security, ADA staff and volunteers, ADA staff did not speak to, direct or consult with RA consulting about security decisions made during the June 5 incident – including the confrontation with the scientists handing out the written materials – until at least the point that Mr. Alexan called the ADA Vice President Meetings and Conventions, to advise that scientists were not complying with their instruction to leave the conference center to distribute the materials outside; Mr. Alexan at that time asked for permission to collect conference badges/credentials from those scientists.
In Mr. Alexan’s testimony to the AGC, he indicated that all five people were given multiple warnings to stop handing out the materials prior to having their credentials removed. The Vice President, Meetings and Conferences similarly told the AGC that she was told by Mr. Alexan that each of the five individuals had been given “three warnings” to stop. Eyewitness accounts related to several of the five individuals contradict Mr. Alexan’s testimony. All five scientists who were ejected from the meeting and others who also circulated the editorial but were not removed, denied being told that they were ever given the option of continuing to distribute the materials outside the doors of the Convention Center.
Based on Mr. Alexan’s account, the Vice President, Meetings and Conferences placed a cell phone call to Charlotte Carter, ADA’s Chief Operating Officer, to make sure that she concurred with the decision to remove the credentials of the individuals who, according to Mr. Alexan, had not complied with the warnings of security personnel. Ms. Carter gave that approval. It should be noted that neither Ms. Carter nor the Vice President, Meetings and Conferences discussed the content of the written materials, nor did either discuss or ask about the identity or affiliations of the individuals involved.
After the very brief call with Ms. Carter, the Vice President, Meetings and Conferences then authorized the security vendor to collect the badges of those who would not comply with directions from security personnel21.
Neither Chief Executive Officer Charles Henderson nor Chief Scientific and Medical Officer Rita Kalyani were directly or indirectly involved in the decision to ask the individuals distributing materials to leave or to revoke their credentials. Both appear to have been unaware of the events taking place until after the keynote and fireside chat sessions had ended.
Prior to the keynote session, Dr. Steven Kahn had collected 1,000 copies of the article that he had ordered from the UPS Store location in the Convention Center and provided them to his colleagues for distribution (See video 1). Several of those individuals given materials to distribute stated that they were given “a handful” of approximately 100 copies each to hand out to attendees as they were entering the auditorium. Among those given materials to distribute were Drs. Aaron Kelly, Justin Ryder, Desmond Schatz and Maureen Gannon. Drs. Jane Reusch, Irl Hirsch, and others also took and distributed copies.
Dr. Steven Kahn, as an author of the Diabetes Care editorial, sought to recruit high-profile scientist colleagues to distribute the editorial at Scientific Sessions. The five Scientists removed from Scientific Sessions assert that they did not believe they were violating ADA guidelines or regulations. In fact, they believed that distributing a Diabetes Care editorial that appeared in the ADA’s journal would be a way to “provide an alternative viewpoint” or “counter-narrative” to the keynote address, while expressly not being “disruptive.”
In addition, several of them believed, incorrectly, that the First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech protection allowed them, in a privately-leased, publicly-owned conference facility to protest or express disagreement with an invited speaker, regardless of the conference organizer’s safety, protocol or conduct policies; two of the five also apparently believed that “Free Speech” allowed them to disregard requests from Convention Center Security personnel, Louisiana State Troopers and NOPD officers and repeatedly distributed the articles as they were being escorted out of Hall F and the conference center. In fact, leased conference facilities, just like private property, are not subject to the same First Amendment protections22.
The Operations staff cited violation of the Code of Conduct for Scientific Sessions as reason for removal of the five individuals. The Code of Conduct, while addressing disruptive behavior, does not specifically address details such as distribution of materials.
Where specific guidelines were in place for the distribution of materials, these appear to be primarily directed at exhibitors, and in several places specifically refer to “companies,” "All products”, “Corporate Symposia”, “advertising” and to “engag(ing) in marketing activities.”
ADA staff charged with conference operations and security expressed significant concerns regarding: what form potential protests might take, and considered potential responses to various scenarios, but they did not appear to know with certainty what the “protests” would extend to or consist of.
NOPD officers were present (off duty, in uniform) as employees of the private contractor (RA Consulting) hired by ADA to provide security at the Convention Center for the ADA conference. The NOPD officers were operating under the contractor’s guidance, but even while off duty, they maintained their law enforcement capabilities as well as a large degree of autonomy. The contractor did communicate with ADA operations staff, but staff did not attempt to directly engage or communicate with the scientist attendees handing out the editorial.
Censorship allegation:
The AGC found no evidence of any attempt or intention to censor the materials distributed at Scientific Sessions (e.g., Diabetes Care editorial) based on their content or political opinions. No member of the ADA Operations staff charged with conference security mentioned the content of the materials being handed out, and appeared to be unaware of the content while the incident was occurring. The security contractor charged with asking (some of) the scientists distributing the Editorial to leave the building and remove their credentials appeared to be unaware of the content as well.
Post Incident Communications
The initial communication to meeting attendees, signed by Chuck Henderson and Mark Atkinson, stated that the five scientists were asked to stop distributing materials, refused, and were subsequently asked to leave. Video footage confirms that the two individuals who began distributing materials inside the session hall (Hall F), Drs. Kelly and Ryder, initially did not comply with security staff’s request to relocate outside of Hall F and appear to have been directed to leave the area. However, both individuals, along with the other scientists involved, consistently reported that they were never offered the option to continue distributing materials in a public area outside the conference center.
The scientists further reported that when they asked why they were being instructed to stop distributing materials, they were told only that the directive came from the ADA and were not provided with a specific explanation. All five scientists stated that they were not informed that they could distribute materials outside the Convention Center on the public sidewalk. Instead, they recall being told only, “You can’t do that here.” Several interpreted this statement as applying solely to the immediate vicinity of Hall F rather than to the Convention Center as a whole.
The decision to not allow immediate publication of the Scientists’ responses to the events in the “Community Voices” section of Diabetes Care was consistent with the usual standard and required review timelines for publication of such materials. The editor of Diabetes Care also asserts that this decision was in violation of his agreement with the ADA, negotiated with the previous Chief Scientific and Medical Officer. ADA staff points out that the publication request called for an accelerated timeline or process for publication to occur and that the ADA offered for publication to occur when the AGC’s investigation was complete and a report could be simultaneously published. The ADA staff also stated concern about publishing editorials with allegations that – even at that point – the ADA believed to be false or very likely inaccurate.
One of the five scientists (Dr. Kelly) who was asked to leave the conference, had expressed in writing to the ADA his intention to disrupt the conference, based on his opposition to the choice of Dr. Bhattacharya as the keynote speaker. During his interview and those with the other scientists, they all asserted that they had chosen distribution of the editorial as a way to present an alternative viewpoint and register their objections to the speaker without disrupting the Scientific meeting. The understandable disconnect is that what the scientists now state was their intention differed from what their colleague, Dr. Kelly, indicated was his original intention. In his earlier email, he pledged to “disrupt,” to “protest” and to “mobilize others” to do the same. Dr. Kelly never disavowed having made his written pledge that at the time he also asked to be circulated to ADA leadership. He also copied Dr. Ryder on it; Dr. Ryder never stated that he disagreed with or would not be a part of any protest or disruption. It should be noted that in Dr. Kelly’s testimony to the AGC he stated that he had written those comments out of anger, and later joined Dr. Kahn’s idea to distribute the editorials as a way to register discontent without disruption.
The actions of two individuals (Drs. Kelly and Ryder) who started distributing materials inside the session hall and near the stage, then initially refused the request of security staff to leave Hall F, may have been the trigger for the decision to revoke the credentials of the five attendees. According to his statements in a June 5, 2026 Seattle Times story, Dr. Kahn also re-entered the conference center and continued distributing copies of his editorial even after being told to stop doing so by security personnel. It is unclear why 2 other specific individuals - Drs. Schatz and Gannon - whose credentials were also revoked were selected, while others who were also distributing materials were not.
In the aftermath of the incident, Charles Henderson, Chief Executive Officer of the ADA, is being subjected to repeated hostile communications including death threats, racist comments, hate mail and other forms of harassment, including certain communications that needed to be reported to law enforcement.
Conference Center Video Review Findings23
A review of available Conference Center video footage from June 5, 2026, was conducted to assess events preceding the removal of the five attendee badges.
Video 1
Video footage shows Dr. Kahn outside the conference center print shop with two boxes of printed materials. The footage appears to show him providing multiple copies of editorials to several scientists. Subsequent video segments appear to show those individuals distributing the materials to conference attendees around the entrance of Hall F prior to the Keynote address.
Video 2
The footage shows that Dr. Kelly and Dr. Ryder entered Hall F approximately 10-15 minutes before the scheduled keynote address. Upon entering the auditorium, both individuals proceeded toward the front seating area and distributed copies of the editorial to attendees.
Security personnel approached Dr. Kelly and Dr. Ryder shortly thereafter. Following a brief interaction, both individuals were escorted outside Hall F by security personnel.
As Dr. Ryder exited Hall F, he continued distributing copies of the editorial. Security personnel intervened, collected the remaining materials in his possession, and escorted him away from the Hall F entrance before releasing him. Security personnel then returned to the Hall F entrance, where Dr. Kelly remained in discussion with security staff.
The footage then shows Dr. Ryder rejoining Dr. Kelly, obtaining additional copies of the editorial, and resuming distribution among attendees gathered nearby. Security personnel subsequently escorted Dr. Kelly away from the Hall F entrance toward the Convention Center Hall F exit. Dr. Ryder voluntarily joined the group during this interaction.
The video further shows Dr. Kelly approaching Dr. Kahn (located to the left of the large General Session red sign), who was greeting colleagues and providing them with copies of the editorial. Security personnel then approached Dr. Kahn, and Drs. Kelly, Ryder, and Kahn were escorted from the Convention Center through the Hall F exit. Available footage subsequently shows the group proceeding toward the facility's main entrance.
No additional video footage was available to verify the reported re-entry of Drs. Kelly, Ryder, and Kahn into the Convention Center or the subsequent distribution activities described during Committee interviews.
Video 3
At approximately the same time, Dr. Schatz was instructed by Peter Alexan, a member of the security staff, to discontinue distribution of the editorial. The video shows that Dr. Schatz immediately complied with the instructions and ceased distributing the material.
Following this interaction, Dr. Schatz joined a small group discussion that included Dr. Gannon. During the period reviewed by the Committee, neither Dr. Schatz nor Dr. Gannon were observed distributing editorials. The video shows no interaction in which Dr. Gannon was directed by security personnel or any other individual to stop distributing materials.
The video evidence reviewed by the Committee establishes certain observable actions by participants and security personnel but does not capture all events described during witness interviews. Therefore, the Committee's findings rely on both video evidence and witness testimony where video documentation was unavailable.
THE COMMITTEE’S REPORT
A charged political atmosphere, a heightened anxiety about security needs on the part of ADA staff and leaders, and a lack of clear and direct communications on the part of the security vendor and personnel, ADA staff, and the scientists combined to turn the events of June 5 into a major incident.
The response to the scientists handing out the Diabetes Care editorial hinged on two important factors: that it was deemed a “disruption” by security and consequently by ADA operations staff; and the information provided to ADA staff and its Chief Operating Officer that all five scientists whose credentials were revoked had received “multiple warnings” prior to their removal.
A reasonable person could conclude that the actions of Drs. Kelly and Ryder were indeed “disruptive” in that they were positioned inside Hall F and also near the stage, and that they resisted requests by security and police to remove them from the room or to stop handing out the editorials even while being explicitly instructed to do so by security and law enforcement.
Dr. Kahn’s actions, which occurred outside of Hall F where the speakers would take the stage, were less disruptive in that they did not threaten to interrupt the speakers who were about to take the stage.
The AGC did not find that the actions of Drs. Schatz and Gannon could be deemed objectively “disruptive”. Dr. Schatz, who stopped distributing his handouts when asked by security, and Dr. Gannon, who was never approached by security before having her badge removed, were both perplexed as to why they could not hand out the editorials. They were persistent only in wanting to know “why” they were not allowed to hand out the editorials and who at ADA they could speak to about it. There was no evidence that either individual resisted security or police.
The ADA’s Scientific Sessions Planning Committee did not pursue or select the keynote speaker due to political loyalty, alignment with his views or agenda.
The ADA was not irresponsible or reckless in preparing for a threatened protest and/or disruption at an event of more than 11,000 attendees.
Better communications between ADA Science and Medicine staff and leadership and ADA Operations staff and leadership would have enabled security and ADA operations to anticipate that the Diabetes Care editorial would be distributed and by many individuals known and trusted by the ADA. It could then have chosen to engage with the scientists to pursue an orderly and non-disruptive session.
ADA staff were nearly unanimous in believing that no attendee could hand out documents outside of the Exhibit Hall where commercial activities take place. However, those customs were only codified in the Exhibitor guidelines, not to attendees of the conference.
ADA’s pre-conference guidance to staff to “not engage” with protestors, and to let security handle all disruptions, created an environment where constructive dialogue during the incident between the scientists and the ADA was not possible.
The ADA did not violate any of the five scientists’ Constitutional Rights.
ADA leadership and staff did not call or alert law enforcement about the five individuals, nor did they interact with law enforcement during the incident.
Multiple Factors made the ADA’s post-incident communications slow, ineffective, and in some cases misleading or potentially factually incorrect. By relying solely on the security vendor’s accounting of the interactions with the five scientists, the ADA made statements that were not borne out by the AGC’s investigation.
