Back in the Spotlight: Anthony Fauci

The controversial disease guru must be muttering under his breath, ‘Thanks, Tulsi.’

Gerald McGlothlin | June 26, 2026

Tulsi Gabbard, U.S. director of National Intelligence, recently declassified records concerning U.S.-funded biological laboratories overseas.  She has reopened a debate that many Americans thought had ended with the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to information released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the United States supported or funded more than 120 biological research laboratories in over 30 countries.  Many of these facilities conducted what some contend were legitimate public health and disease surveillance work.  Yet the disclosures also revive longstanding concerns about oversight; transparency; gain-of-function research; and America’s decision to collaborate with foreign laboratories, including facilities located in countries that are strategic adversaries.

For years, Americans were assured that international biological research partnerships were essential for preventing future pandemics.  Today, however, many are asking a different question: Why would the United States share sensitive pathogen research with countries such as China, particularly when that knowledge could theoretically be used for military or biological weapons purposes?

The most famous foreign biolab was China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology, given millions of dollars involuntarily by U.S. taxpayers through grants administered by EcoHealth Alliance and the National Institutes of Health, which supported coronavirus research involving bat viruses and their potential ability to infect humans.  The stated goal was to better understand how viruses might jump from animals to people before a pandemic occurred.  So they replicated in a lab what that might look like and created COVID-19, which apparently escaped from the Wuhan lab, killing millions of people worldwide.  Truth also was killed in the process.

Supporters viewed the research as prudent preparation.  Critics viewed it as playing with fire.  Cynics question........

© American Thinker