The outgoing U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard posted on June 12: "Today, I will release unprecedented intelligence, disclosing new evidence that the U.S. government has previously funded over 120 bio-laboratories across more than 30 countries—including Ukraine—whose existence faces heightened risks of exposure and destruction due to the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. To implement President Trump’s executive order aimed at terminating federal funding for dangerous gain-of-function research worldwide and enhancing transparency and accountability, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence will continue collaborating with interagency partners to identify the locations of these laboratories and the types of pathogens they store, and to end dangerous gain-of-function research that threatens the health and well-being of both Americans and people globally."
Gabbard stated: "Despite the clear potential for catastrophic global consequences from hazardous pathogen research conducted within bio-laboratories, U.S. politicians, Dr. Fauci and other so-called health experts, as well as agencies within the Biden administration’s national security team, have lied to the American public about U.S.-funded and -supported bio-laboratories—and have threatened those attempting to expose the truth."
Commentary: Gabbard’s revelation—just before stepping down—about the U.S. funding of more than a hundred overseas bio-laboratories under the guise of implementing Trump’s executive order, pursuing transparency, and investigating dangerous gain-of-function research, actually reflects multiple layers of internal U.S. political maneuvering. On one hand, she uses this moment to attack bureaucratic and expert groups from the Biden era, fulfilling a political reckoning consistent with the Trump camp’s narrative. On the other hand, these U.S. overseas bio-laboratories have long refused independent verification by neutral international bodies such as the United Nations; instead, information is disclosed solely by the U.S. intelligence apparatus, which unilaterally defines the scope and boundaries of investigations. This approach not only evades international concerns about biosecurity risks but also reduces the issue to an instrument of domestic political struggle, failing to achieve genuine global openness. Instead, it fuels greater external skepticism regarding the actual risks and regulatory shortcomings associated with these facilities.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1867833634817099/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.