US Director of National Intelligence Dumps Declassified COVID Origin Documents On Final Day In Role

US Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, has released a trove of previously classified communications and internal government documents that paint a detailed picture of how former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Director, Anthony Fauci, interacted with US intelligence agencies during the investigation into the origins of COVID-19.

The release, comprising dozens of emails, intelligence reports, meeting readouts and internal correspondence spanning from early 2020 through late 2024, is the product of a year-long declassification review conducted under President Trump’s transparency mandate.

The documents show Fauci provided millions in US taxpayer dollars to fund gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) before the pandemic, recommended specific scientists for the Intelligence Community (IC) to consult during its origins investigation and engaged directly with CIA analysts on the topic – interactions he later denied under oath before Congress.

Tulsi also released a video summarising the release:

Lawrence Livermore flagged lab leak conditions in May 2020

Among the most significant documents in the release is a previously classified report from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s Z Program, dated 27 May 2020 – just months into the pandemic.

The report, titled “China: Conditions Present for Laboratory Modification and Release of Human-Adapted Coronavirus in Wuhan in Late 2019,” assessed that all the necessary preconditions for an accidental release of a lab-modified coronavirus were in place at the WIV in mid-to-late 2019.

The Lawrence Livermore analysts identified four conditions that would need to be met for such a scenario: the presence of precursor viruses genetically similar to SARS-CoV-2; laboratory use of reverse genetic systems to modify coronaviruses; testing to determine whether viruses could infect human cells via ACE2 receptors; and accidents with coronavirus materials due to lax biosafety practices.

The report placed equal weight on the lab modification hypothesis alongside natural outbreak or accidental release of a naturally occurring virus from the laboratory.

A flowchart included in the report mapped out the gain-of-function research framework for bat coronaviruses, showing steps from initial bat coronavirus collection through targeted mutation, cell infection, animal testing and assessment of whether a virus gained new functionality. The chart indicated these activities were occurring at the WIV in late 2019, with only the final gain-of-function assessment step marked with a question mark.

Fauci briefed by CIA in June 2021

A declassified readout of a 4 June 2021 briefing reveals CIA’s Weapons and Counterproliferation Mission Center (WCPMC) met with Fauci to present its analysis on COVID origins.

During the session, Fauci asked detailed questions about WIV’s work with pangolins and the types of experiments being conducted on pangolin samples in the fall of 2019. He stressed the importance of obtaining samples from WIV researchers who fell ill that autumn and wondered aloud whether the US government had formally requested such information from China through diplomatic channels.

Fauci and CIA experts discussed whether SARS-CoV-2 originated from single or multiple viral lineages, and Fauci encouraged the agency to contact specific scientists whose findings he described as consistent with a natural origin for the virus.

He expressed concern about Beijing’s rapid cleaning of the Huanan Seafood Market, calling it a serious epidemiological misstep that could have destroyed key clues. He compared the search for an animal reservoir to “searching for a needle in a haystack.”

A separate internal email from the Office of the National Intelligence Management for Counterproliferation confirmed the briefing occurred, noting Fauci “was particularly interested in the specific details provided on the research WIV was doing and on their work with pangolins.”

IC officials treated Fauci as a trusted expert, not a policymaker

A July 2021 email chain marked classified shows internal debate within the IC about whether to follow up on Fauci’s recommendations for which scientists to consult during the 90-day COVID origins study ordered by President Biden.

One official cautioned that Fauci should be treated as a policymaker whose recommendations warranted scrutiny, writing: “I think the first question is whether the NIC wants to make the effort after it weighs whether to take a policymaker’s recommendations on who we should consult as part of an IC study – particularly given the various strong views on the subject.”

A senior analyst pushed back firmly, responding: “In this particular case, given Dr Fauci’s background we absolutely would like to follow-up on his outreach suggestions. In this case he’s not a policymaker… he’s a SME with a wealth of knowledge about current and historical research who probably knows better than most who the real Coronavirus experts are.”

The email chain also shows the ODNI Chief of Staff forwarding Fauci’s recommendations for specific scientists whose views he considered important for the 90-day study, with an instruction to consider the article Fauci had highlighted and to consult with the named individuals.

DNI Gabbard’s press release characterises this dynamic as a “self-serving circular reporting loop” in which Fauci provided hand-picked NIAID-funded scientists to advise the IC, whose assessments were then publicly cited as scientific consensus to counter the lab leak theory.

Early expert meeting showed divided views

A readout from a 3 February 2020 meeting at the National Academy of Sciences provides a window into the earliest expert discussions about the virus’s origins. The meeting, which Fauci attended by phone alongside officials from ODNI, HHS and the Office of Science and Technology Policy, brought together leading virologists including Ralph Baric from the University of North Carolina and Peter Daszak from EcoHealth Alliance.

The readout records a consensus that the virus was not a bioweapon but notes the group could not rule out a laboratory accident. One section states: “Will never be able to distinguish between natural vs. lab accident with current data.”

The backstory section of the readout explains why the meeting was convened. Several scientists had called Fauci on a Friday night, concerned about inserts at furin cleavage sites that did not match expert expectations. The scientists described the mutations as “improbable” and likened the situation to a ten-step process where sequences for steps seven through nine were missing.

A subsequent weekend call found that two experts believed the sequences were natural while the remainder were unsure. The group determined a panel should be convened, “probably operating under WHO to not cause problems with China and limit access.”

Baric told the meeting he was not aware of the WIV introducing mutations into the human ACE2 receptor but was aware of published chimera work. He noted that mutations in hACE2 did not look like “perfect engineering” and that if engineered, the sequences would have been optimised for ideal binding. He stated this was evidence for natural evolution but could not rule out a lab accident.

Daszak reported that communication with Chinese scientists “has dried up” and that WIV researchers were “normally more open than typical Chinese, state-sponsored scientists.”

Congressional briefings turned hostile

Several declassified emails detail contentious briefings between IC officials and members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) over the COVID origins assessment.

A September 2021 readout from an IC official describes a briefing that “did not go well.” After presenting the 90-day study findings, the official was repeatedly pressed by members of both parties to identify the outside scientists the IC had consulted. The official declined, citing source protection policy.

“Every single minority member who asked questions spent the first two-three minutes of their allotted five minutes expressing outrage and disdain over my behavior,” the official wrote. “One, not sure who because this was all a blur, even said ‘shame on you.'”

The official observed that few members appeared to have read the assessment, and that members from both parties were “surprised and confused” that the FBI had reached a different conclusion from other agencies. “Nobody seemed to understand what ‘low confidence’ means,” the official added.

The readout concludes: “I would expect the DNI to receive angry letters from the Hill calling my professionalism into question and demanding that the IC name names. And maybe that I be fired.”

The official forwarded this readout to a colleague with the note: “FYI… fun stuff. Morgan says he won’t fire me.”

A July 2023 email chain reveals the fallout from this briefing continued for years. An official noted they had been advised by congressional staffers not to attend briefings involving Representative Brad Wenstrup, adding: “That briefing admittedly didn’t go well, but that’s hardly a justification to not have me brief now, almost two years later. I am perfectly capable of briefing in front of a hostile audience.”

Disputed claims about CIA analyst divisions

The same July 2023 email chain flags an unusual claim made to the House COVID Subcommittee. According to a congressional staffer, the DNI had told Representative Wenstrup that CIA was “2/3 in the ‘lab leak’ camp but that they were being ‘held back’ by 1/3 of the analysts.”

When the CIA briefer was asked about this, she responded that she had never heard such a characterisation. The IC official who raised the issue wrote that CIA management had since asked whether the DNI had actually made this statement or whether there was another explanation.

Whistleblower accounts describe retaliation

DNI Gabbard’s announcement states that ODNI officials gathered testimony from multiple IC whistleblowers who reported retaliation for challenging the IC’s manipulation of intelligence on COVID origins.

The press release describes specific examples referred to the IC Inspector General: a contractor terminated days after coming forward to ODNI as a whistleblower; managers reminding analysts who advocated for the lab leak hypothesis that leadership would determine promotions; and senior leaders allegedly removing anonymity from the complaint process by requiring managers or attorneys be present at ODNI meetings.

An August 2021 email with the subject line “ICWPA Complaint re: False Testimony to Congress” and another titled “Whistleblower Issue – Revised Letter after Discussion and Transcript Review” appear in the document index, indicating formal complaints were filed through the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act process.

Fauci’s congressional testimony contradicted by documents

The released correspondence directly challenges testimony Fauci gave before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic in 2024. During that hearing, while under oath, Fauci was asked repeatedly whether he had spoken with the FBI, CIA, DIA or any US intelligence agency about viral research before, during or after the pandemic.

According to the ODNI press release, Fauci repeatedly dodged the questions before stating “not to my knowledge about COVID.”

The declassified documents show at minimum one substantive briefing between Fauci and CIA analysts in June 2021, email exchanges between IC officials discussing Fauci’s recommendations for the 90-day origins study and his attendance at the February 2020 National Academy of Sciences meeting alongside intelligence officials.

A December 2023 email from a CIA official to the Office of Congressional Affairs flagged concerns about public claims regarding Fauci’s engagement with the agency. The email included a transcript of a Fox News interview in which Senator Rand Paul stated that Fauci “was visiting the CIA in early 2020” and that “CIA scientists, seven of them, voted six to one to say it came from the lab, and then they were reversed by superiors.”

The CIA official noted they had attached a previously prepared email to the Deputy Director of CIA on “the background of our Fauci engagement” and recommended that any congressional questions about CIA be directed through official channels.

FOIA requests and document handling

One email chain from March 2022 shows IC officials grappling with a FOIA litigation request seeking all records referencing Fauci, the WIV and COVID-19 created by senior officials at the State Department, NIH or ODNI from May 2020 onward.

An official responded to the request by calling it “ridiculous” and instructing colleagues to “stand down on this for now,” noting it was one of six FOIA requests filed by the same person on COVID origin topics with “more probably on the way.”

Leaked classified report drew media attention

A May 2023 email chain discusses the leak of the Lawrence Livermore Z Program report to media outlets and online researchers. An official from the National Counterproliferation and Biosecurity Center alerted colleagues that the document had appeared on The Blaze and was being shared on social media by an individual associated with drasticresearch.org, described as a group “tied to other leaked information.”

The official noted the leaked version was similar to an internal draft but did not contain analyst comments.

WIV research capabilities documented

The release includes a 2016 research article from Virologica Sinica authored by scientists at the WIV’s State Key Laboratory of Virology. The paper describes the construction of a novel DNA assembly tool called pGF that enables the assembly of large DNA sequences – up to 31 kilobases – using yeast recombination.

The paper’s acknowledgments section thanks Dr Zhihong Hu, Dr Zhengli Shi and Dr Fei Deng of the Wuhan Institute of Virology for their “advice, encouragement, and support.” The inclusion of this paper in the declassified release appears intended to demonstrate the WIV’s technical capabilities in synthetic biology and viral genome assembly.

Congressional report confirmed lab leak assessment

A December 2024 email from a CIA Open Source Specialist to colleagues summarised the House Select Subcommittee’s 520-page final report on the COVID-19 pandemic. The report concluded that COVID-19 most likely emerged from a laboratory in Wuhan and cited five key factors: the virus possesses a biological characteristic not found in nature; all cases stem from a single introduction into humans; Wuhan houses China’s foremost SARS research lab with a history of gain-of-function research at inadequate biosafety levels; WIV researchers were sick with COVID-like symptoms in the fall of 2019; and if evidence of a natural origin existed, it would have already surfaced.

A brief exchange between colleagues in response to the report asked: “Does Congress have any idea about the Germans?” with a reply stating: “ODNI was going to give them a heads up but not sure what happened to that… we probably need to engage OCA.”

IC analysts distinguished between lab origin and engineering

Internal emails from September 2020 show IC analysts carefully parsing the distinction between different origin theories. In response to a study linked to Steve Bannon’s nonprofit organisations claiming the virus was manufactured in a Chinese lab, one analyst offered a measured assessment.

“Coming from a lab (we think this is possible) does not equal manmade (we think this is unlikely based on available evidence),” the analyst wrote. “Coming from a lab does not equal intentionally released from a lab (we def think this is unlikely).”

The analyst also observed: “I do think that some journals/media organizations are slamming down any lab-related theories as conspiracies, so, sure, I’d be frustrated if I wanted attention, too.”

Scale of the release

The document index lists 67 separate items in the first batch of the release, ranging from classified intelligence assessments and diplomatic cables to internal IC emails, meeting readouts, congressional correspondence and published scientific papers. The materials span from early February 2020 through mid-2026 and involve personnel from ODNI, the CIA, the National Intelligence Council, the National Counterproliferation Center, the Defence Intelligence Agency, the National Security Council and various congressional committees.

The release represents what the ODNI describes as part of its ongoing effort to provide transparency around the US government’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and its investigation into the virus’s origins.

Last Updated on June 20, 2026 by Nick Ross