Gabbard Releases Biolab Records Years After Disinformation Accusations

Years after facing Russian disinformation accusations, the outgoing DNI released records on 120 U.S.-funded foreign biolabs.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has declassified new intelligence material that she claims reveals longstanding U.S. government funding for more than 120 biological laboratories across more than 30 countries, reopening questions about oversight of overseas pathogen research and the extent of public knowledge about those programs.

The intelligence dump goes beyond the debate that surrounded Ukrainian laboratories during the early stages of Russia’s invasion. The Intelligence Community identified a global network of U.S.-funded facilities, according to Gabbard, many of which have conducted research involving hazardous and highly contagious pathogens.

Military.com exclusively reported how Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) introduced legislation aimed to increase mandatory criminal penalties for individuals smuggling bioweapons into the United States, coming on the heels of Department of Justice-announced charges against two National Institutes of Health researchers caught for allegedly bringing vials of monkeypox into the country from Africa.

Gabbard is in her final days as DNI, recently announcing that her husband had contracted bone cancer as an impetus for leaving the position. She has faced scrutiny in her role due to her past remarks about "forever wars" and U.S. military intervention—dating back to when she was an elected Democrat and presidential candidate—and how those views have shifted, starting with strikes on Venezuelan vessels last summer and since the U.S. started attacking Iran on Feb. 28.

President Donald Trump on Thursday endorsed Jay Clayton, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and former chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission, as the next DNI. It was somewhat of a curveball after Bill Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, was originally endorsed by Trump to succeed Gabbard less than two weeks earlier.

Ukraine Was Only One Piece of a Larger Program

Much of the public debate over foreign biolabs has centered on Ukraine. The newly declassified slides suggest U.S. involvement there was extensive.

One slide within the new DNI report states more than 40 laboratories in Ukraine were built or supported through U.S. government funding. The same document describes training for Ukrainian scientists working in bio-containment facilities and identifies programs involving storage, surveillance and research related to dangerous pathogens.

The slides list pathogens and diseases including anthrax, tularemia, plague, tuberculosis, African swine fever, Newcastle disease, MERS, SARS, Marburg virus, Ebola virus and Lassa fever. According to the documents, U.S.-funded facilities conducted research involving highly infectious pathogens and participated in programs examining the genomes of highly pathogenic avian influenza and other viruses.

The slides also identify specific facilities and funding amounts. The Central Reference Laboratory at the Ukrainian Research Anti-Plague Institute in Odesa received more than $3.4 million in U.S. funding. The Institute of Veterinary Medicine of the National Academy of Agrarian Sciences received more than $2.1 million. Additional funding went to laboratories in Kherson and Zakarpattia.

The network diagram included in the declassified material extends well beyond contractors and intelligence agencies. The slide depicts connections involving the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, the Naval Medical Research Center, the World Health Organization and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.

It also includes several American higher education institutions, including the University of Florida, the University of Alaska Anchorage, Kansas State University, the University of Tennessee and the University of New Mexico, alongside Ukrainian institutions and other foreign organizations.

The documents do not explain the specific role of every entity shown. The breadth of the chart, however, illustrates that the programs discussed in the release extended beyond a few laboratories and involved organizations from public health, agriculture, academia, international development and national security.

A Warning About Dangerous Pathogens

One of the most significant disclosures involves a warning previously circulated within the Intelligence Community.

According to Gabbard’s office, intelligence analysts warned that a U.S.-funded laboratory in Ukraine likely housed dangerous pathogens and remained vulnerable to Russian attack, seizure or accidental damage during the war.

Russian military operations have repeatedly moved through areas containing laboratories supported by Western governments. Intelligence officials reportedly viewed those facilities as vulnerable enough to warrant internal warning products.

Gabbard argues that information about the scope of these laboratories was deliberately withheld from the public and that individuals who raised questions about their existence were frequently dismissed or accused of spreading foreign disinformation. Back in 2022, then-Lt. Col. Tulsi Gabbard faced criticism after warning that U.S.-funded biolabs in Ukraine could be compromised during the war.

Critics, such as then-Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), accused her of telling a “treasonous lie” and amplifying Russian disinformation. Gabbard argued that the existence of U.S.-supported laboratories in Ukraine was a matter of public record and that the concern was the potential release of pathogens if fighting reached those facilities.

That allegation remains politically controversial. The newly released documents, assuming authenticity, establish that U.S.-supported laboratories existed in Ukraine and that federal agencies funded research, training and infrastructure projects involving biological materials and infectious diseases.

Why the Release is Important

The timing of the release reflects a broader shift in federal policy toward biological research.

In May 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14292 restricting federal funding for gain-of-function research and directing agencies to identify biological research activities that could pose risks to public health or national security. The administration argued that research capable of increasing the transmissibility or lethality of pathogens required significantly greater scrutiny.

Gabbard’s office said some of the foreign laboratories funded by the United States have conducted research involving hazardous pathogens and, in certain cases, gain-of-function activities. The release does not identify every laboratory involved or provide a comprehensive list of projects currently underway.

Instead, Gabbard announced new guidance directing intelligence agencies to increase collection efforts on foreign biological laboratories and facilities receiving U.S. support. According to the release, those efforts are already producing new information regarding clinical trials and ongoing research programs, raising what Gabbard described as ethical, financial and national security concerns.

Growing Questions About Biological Oversight

The release arrives amid several unrelated cases that have heightened public concern about biological oversight and pathogen security.

In Nevada, investigators discovered what authorities described as an unauthorized biological laboratory operating from a residential property in Las Vegas. The investigation led to the seizure of biological materials and laboratory equipment, although some federal charges connected to the case were later dropped.

At the beginning of June, federal prosecutors charged two NIH researchers with allegedly smuggling biological materials, including deactivated monkeypox samples, into the United States from the Republic of Congo.

Those cases are unrelated to the overseas laboratories identified in Gabbard’s release. Together, however, they have intensified scrutiny of how governments, researchers and public health institutions manage dangerous biological materials.

The debate is no longer whether U.S.-supported laboratories exist overseas, as the newly declassified documents establish that they did. The larger question raised by Gabbard’s release is whether Congress, policymakers and the public had a complete understanding of how many facilities existed, what research they conducted, and what pathogens they contained.