Skip to content

Tulsi Gabbard Launches Investigation on 120 US-Funded Biolabs – Dozens Located in Ukraine

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has pulled back the curtain on a massive federal auditing initiative, pivoting the weight of the U.S. intelligence apparatus toward a sprawling network of more than 120 biological laboratories operating on foreign soil. At the heart of the probe lies a decades-long trail of taxpayer-funded grants and a singular, high-stakes objective: permanently dismantling “gain-of-function” research.

In an exclusive briefing with the New York Post on Monday, Gabbard signaled that her office is moving beyond mere observation. Her team is currently mapping a global constellation of facilities to determine exactly what pathogens are being housed and what “research”—a term she framed with pointed skepticism—is being conducted behind closed doors.

“The COVID-19 pandemic revealed the catastrophic global impact research on dangerous pathogens in biolabs can have,” Gabbard stated, invoking the trauma of the 2020 global shutdown as the catalyst for her current sweep.

A Legacy of Denial

Gabbard’s rhetoric didn’t stop at safety protocols; she leveled a scathing indictment against the Washington establishment. The Director accused a coalition of politicians, national security officials from the Biden era, and high-profile health figures—specifically naming Dr. Anthony Fauci—of orchestrating a campaign of misinformation regarding the very existence of these facilities.

The DNI’s office pointed to a watershed moment in May 2024 as the foundation for their skepticism. During congressional testimony, National Institutes of Health (NIH) Principal Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak conceded that American tax dollars had indeed funded gain-of-function experiments at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Those experiments, officials noted, resulted in viral strains that were effectively 10,000 times more infectious than their natural counterparts.

The Global Footprint: From the Cold War to the Front Lines

The scope of the investigation spans more than 30 countries, revealing a complex logistical legacy. Many of these labs are vestiges of a post-Cold War Pentagon initiative designed to secure or dismantle Soviet-era chemical and biological weapons materials. Decades later, however, the mission creep has left a trail of facilities that some argue have outlived their original defensive purpose.

Geopolitical Hotspots Under the Microscope:

  • The Ukraine Corridor: Over 40 of the facilities currently under review are located within Ukraine.

  • The Conflict Risk: Intelligence officials expressed heightened “red-alert” concerns regarding these specific labs. The volatility of an active war zone, they argue, creates an unacceptable risk of facilities being compromised, disrupted, or having dangerous materials seized by adversarial forces.

Related article  Rosie O’Donnell Reveals Real Reason She Gets Under Trump’s Skin

The “Funding Quagmire”

The investigation is also expected to probe the “quagmire” of federal bureaucracy. For years, critics have argued that the oversight of research funding—which often flows from federal agencies through a labyrinth of primary grantees and secondary subawardees—is intentionally opaque.

This lack of transparency, according to DNI officials, has effectively stripped the American public of their right to know if potentially world-altering experiments are being conducted on their dime—and without their consent. Gabbard’s mission appears aimed at clearing that fog, even if it means upending the decades-old status quo of international biological research.

Officials within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) have heightened their rhetoric regarding overseas biological facilities, warning that ongoing clinical trials are now triggering “significant ethical, financial, and security concerns.” The shift in tone signals a deeper investigation into the mechanics of how American tax dollars flow into sensitive foreign research.

Semantics and Sovereignty

A central point of contention remains the Biden administration’s standing denial of direct involvement. In a bid to neutralize allegations from Moscow, the administration previously issued a firm statement asserting that “the United States does not own or operate any chemical or biological laboratories in Ukraine.”

However, veteran intelligence observers note that “ownership” is often a semantic distraction. The crux of the current investigation isn’t who holds the deed to the buildings, but the financial umbilical cord that keeps them operational. Critics argue that claiming the U.S. doesn’t “own or operate” these facilities does little to refute the established reality that funding is funneled through a complex web of federal agencies, primary grantees, and third-party subawardees.

The Gain-of-Function Tug-of-War

This administrative audit lands in the middle of a fierce political firestorm over “gain-of-function” (GoF) research—the controversial practice of enhancing a pathogen’s transmissibility or virulence to better understand its potential for devastation.

The debate has effectively split the scientific and political communities into two camps:

  • The Proponents: Argue that GoF is a preemptive strike against future pandemics, providing the blueprint for vaccines and treatments before a natural outbreak occurs.

  • The Skeptics: Maintain that the risk-to-reward ratio is fundamentally broken, asserting that a single laboratory breach could trigger the very global catastrophe scientists claim to be preventing.

Related article  80-year-old kills 11-year-old girl and his wife for an unimaginable reason – then mocks police about the victims

Reopening the Wuhan File

The current scrutiny inevitably leads back to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). Federal agencies have already conceded that U.S.-funded coronavirus experiments at the Chinese facility bypassed several mandatory grant reporting requirements.

This retrospective look also places a fresh spotlight on the legacy of Dr. Anthony Fauci. While Fauci has historically championed the merits of GoF research—arguing that the scientific insights gained are worth the inherent dangers—he has also publicly acknowledged the grim possibility of laboratory accidents or intentional misuse. For the ODNI, the question now is whether those risks were ever properly managed—or if the American public was left to foot the bill for a global gamble they never authorized.

The current investigation draws much of its momentum from a pivotal 2022 congressional hearing that remains etched in the memory of Capitol Hill. In March of that year, then-Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland delivered testimony that would become the epicenter of a national security firestorm. When questioned, Nuland acknowledged that Ukraine indeed housed “biological research facilities,” adding a layer of urgency by admitting the United States was deeply concerned that Russian forces might seize control of the sensitive materials within.

That admission has since served as a cornerstone for skeptics, fueling a protracted debate over the true nature of U.S.-supported laboratories and the exact scope of their operations in Eastern Europe.

A Seismic Shift at the ODNI

This audit does not exist in a vacuum; it is a flagship initiative of a broader, more aggressive effort by the Trump administration to overhaul the intelligence landscape. Since assuming the mantle of Director of National Intelligence in 2025, Tulsi Gabbard has positioned herself as a disruptor. Her leadership has been defined by a self-described crusade for transparency and a fundamental restructuring of national security policy—aimed, she says, at salvaging the public’s eroding trust in the “alphabet soup” of government agencies.

Related article  U.S. Coast Guardsman's wife arrested over expired visa after security check for military housing

The Push for Accountability

The call for a deep dive into these facilities is gaining traction among proponents who argue that oversight has failed to keep pace with a massive, two-decade surge in federal spending on overseas biological research. They contend that the expansion of these programs has occurred in the shadows, far outstripping the government’s ability—or willingness—to monitor them.

Adding military weight to the inquiry, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has broken ranks with his predecessors to champion Gabbard’s review. In a blunt assessment, Hegseth lauded the investigation while leveling a heavy charge against former officials, accusing past administrations of a systemic failure to disclose the true depth and danger of foreign laboratory bankrolling. Under this new alignment of the DNI and the Pentagon, the era of “trust us” appears to be coming to a definitive end.

In a stinging rebuke of the previous administration’s national security protocols, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth characterized the current biological laboratory probe as a necessary purging of institutional dishonesty. Hegseth asserted that the Trump administration is now moving to “right the wrongs” of the Biden era, framing the investigation as a restoration of federal integrity.

“The prior administration bankrolled dangerous Gain-of-Function research and foreign biolabs with American tax dollars, then deliberately hid it from the American people,” Hegseth stated, pulling no punches in his assessment of the preceding years.

The Secretary emphasized that the recent declassification of these findings serves as a stark indictment of the “minimal oversight” that governed these programs for years. By bringing these activities into the light, Hegseth argued that DNI Tulsi Gabbard and the broader Cabinet are not merely auditing accounts, but are “delivering justice” for both the American military and the civilian population.

“The era of lies and betrayal is over,” Hegseth concluded, signaling a definitive—and highly ideological—pivot toward a more aggressive, transparent, and confrontational posture regarding how the U.S. government monitors its biological footprint abroad.

Published inNEWS