Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released a trove of declassified records detailing U.S. funding of more than 120 biological laboratories across more than 30 countries, arguing the documents validate concerns that were previously dismissed as misinformation.
The release comes years after Gabbard drew criticism for raising concerns about U.S.-funded biolabs in Ukraine following Russia's 2022 invasion. At the time, critics accused her of echoing Russian narratives, while supporters argued legitimate questions about the labs' activities and oversight were being unfairly dismissed.
What the Right Is Saying
Republican lawmakers have largely welcomed the declassification, arguing it demonstrates a lack of transparency about U.S. taxpayer-funded research overseas. Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who has previously sought information about the programs, said the documents raise legitimate questions about congressional oversight and public disclosure requirements.
Former Trump administration officials note that while they were aware of the threat-reduction programs, the scale and scope detailed in Gabbard's release exceeded what had been publicly disclosed. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia called for additional hearings to examine whether proper notification was provided to Congress.
Conservative commentators have argued that the episode validates concerns raised early in the Ukraine conflict about the nature of U.S. involvement in biological research facilities, accusing media outlets and political opponents of dismissing legitimate inquiries as conspiracy theories without adequate examination.
What the Left Is Saying
Democratic lawmakers and public health experts have largely maintained that the laboratories were part of long-running threat-reduction programs designed to secure dangerous pathogens and prevent biological proliferation. They argue such programs are standard practice for preventing the spread of infectious diseases and have been conducted transparently with partner nations.
Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, a senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has previously noted that U.S.-funded biological research overseas serves legitimate public health purposes, including disease surveillance and vaccine development. Administration officials under the previous administration emphasized that all programs operated within international frameworks and were subject to oversight.
Critics within the progressive community argue that Gabbard's release, while providing documentation of existing programs, risks amplifying Kremlin talking points without providing new evidence of weapons development. They note that the same threat-reduction programs operate in dozens of countries worldwide, including nations with which the United States has formal scientific cooperation agreements.
What the Numbers Show
The newly released ODNI briefing slides reveal the following data points: More than 120 laboratories received U.S. funding across more than 30 countries. In Ukraine specifically, more than 40 laboratories received American taxpayer funding and housed collections of dangerous bacteria and viruses dating back to the Soviet era.
Pathogens studied or stored within the Ukrainian laboratory network include anthrax, tuberculosis, plague, Ebola virus, Marburg virus, MERS and SARS, according to the documents. A veterinary research laboratory in Kharkiv that received Pentagon funding through the Defense Department's Biological Threat Reduction Program housed hundreds of samples including Brucella bacteria.
Individual laboratory construction and upgrade projects cost between roughly $1.7 million and $3.5 million each, with engineering firm Black & Veatch identified as a major contractor. Ukrainian scientists participated in U.S.-funded training programs focused on handling especially dangerous diseases.
The Bottom Line
The declassification is likely to reignite debate over government transparency regarding overseas research programs, gain-of-function research oversight, and the scope of U.S.-funded biological work abroad. Gabbard has argued that the documents demonstrate the public was not given a full picture of U.S.-backed biological research programs.
Critics maintain the facilities were part of legitimate threat-reduction efforts designed to secure dangerous pathogens under international monitoring frameworks. Congressional committees with oversight jurisdiction over intelligence and defense matters are expected to examine whether existing disclosure requirements adequately inform lawmakers and taxpayers about such programs.