Tulsi Gabbard, upon stepping down as Director of National Intelligence, released declassified documents around June 18-19, 2026, accusing Dr. Anthony Fauci (former head of NIAID) of funnelling millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars into bat coronavirus gain-of-function research at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). These documents widely confirm that this institute was the likely site of the laboratory leak of the viral pathogen that caused the COVID-19 pandemic.
Tulsi Gabbard’s disclosure includes nearly 400 pages of emails, memos, whistleblower accounts, scientific publications, diplomatic cables, a May 2020 Lawrence Livermore National Lab assessment of WIV conditions, and EcoHealth progress reports. They were declassified as part of a transparency review.
Gabbard made the announcement on her final day in office, emphasizing that it was time for the public to know the “true story” of how these actions led to “immeasurable harm and countless deaths.”
Fauci’s role was evident, according to these published documents. Fauci oversaw grants, most often through EcoHealth Alliance, supporting coronavirus research involving viruses collected from bats at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. This included dangerous gain-of-function work, which involved modifying pathogens to test their transmissibility or virulence. Given the poor safety procedures at the Wuhan laboratory, the viral pathogen’s escape became understandable.
Furthermore, it is alleged that Fauci collaborated with intelligence community officials to downplay the lab leak theory, bias assessments toward natural origins, and suppress dissent. This included influencing expert consultations and creating circulating reports.
The filings also found that Fauci lied under oath in a 2024 deposition, denying knowledge of or participation in conversations with intelligence officials about virus research. A whistleblower complaint in that case was reportedly dismissed.
Fauci has previously lied and denied any involvement or funding in the work to gain function at WIV, involvement in a cover-up, or misleading Congress. He has also cited the scientific consensus on the virus’s natural origins.
The second person implicated in Tulsi Gabbard’s revelations is Peter Daszak. He was implicated in the Gabbard-declassified documents primarily as the key intermediary who channelled U.S. taxpayer funding (via NIH/NIAID grants) to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) for bat coronavirus research, including work described as gain-of-function, while actively working to suppress the lab-leak hypothesis.
EcoHealth Alliance, under Daszak, received NIH grants and sub granted funds (hundreds of thousands to over $600,000 mentioned in related contexts) to the WIV for research on bat coronaviruses. This work is tied in the documents to the risky experiments seen as a plausible source of the lab leak.
Also, Daszak organized and recruited scientists for a letter published in The Lancet that dismissed the lab-leak hypothesis as a “conspiracy theory.” The documents note how this and similar actions helped shut down early debate, with Daszak’s EcoHealth ties creating clear conflicts of interest.
Emails show Daszak and Fauci were in contact during the early pandemic. Daszak reportedly praised Fauci for publicly casting doubt on the lab-leak idea. The documents frame this as part of a broader effort involving Fauci to influence assessments and public messaging
The primary stated rationale for sponsoring this research was scientific and public health-driven: to study high-risk viruses in order to better predict, prevent, and prepare for future pandemics. Proponents, including researchers like Daszak and officials like Fauci, argued that understanding bat coronaviruses (natural reservoirs for many emerging diseases) through lab work—such as genetic sequencing, infection studies, and some forms of gain-of-function (GoF) research—could accelerate vaccine development, antiviral drugs, and surveillance systems.
However critics, including some scientists, lawmakers (e.g., Rand Paul), and the declassified documents’ framing, argue the research was unethical or recklessly dangerous for several reasons:
Enhancing transmissibility or virulence in labs (even for study) creates pathogens that don’t exist in nature. A lab accident at WIV—where biosafety concerns were reportedly documented—could spark a pandemic. The Lawrence Livermore assessment in the releases noted conditions ripe for such a release.
EcoHealth/Daszak faced accusations of inadequate monitoring of subawards to WIV, reporting lapses, and conflicts (e.g., Daszak’s role in origins letters while tied to the funded lab). NIH later suspended and debarred EcoHealth/Daszak over these issues.
