Newly disclosed records detailing Dr. Anthony Faucis long-standing ties to the Central Intelligence Agency are casting a harsh new light on the federal governments biodefense apparatus and raising profound questions about what U.S. intelligence knew about coronavirus engineering long before COVID-19 exploded in Wuhan.
According to RedState, the latest tranche of Fauci-related documents confirms that the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which Fauci led for decades, maintained a sustained relationship with the CIA that went far beyond routine interagency coordination. The records show that NIAID entered into an agreement to conduct ostensibly unclassified virus research designed to augment and complement CIA research and development, embedding a civilian health agency deep inside the intelligence communitys post?9/11 biodefense architecture.
The new material has also revived scrutiny of a prominent American coronavirus researcher whose work has long been at the center of the lab?origin debate. The document dump, as reported by investigative journalist Emily Kopp, points toward the possibility that the CIA effectively sanctioned coronavirus?engineering research involving University of North Carolina virologist Ralph Baric years before the world ever heard of SARS?CoV?2.
We can't say for sure, but the latest Fauci document dump includes evidence that Ralph Baric's coronavirus engineering research with the Wuhan lab was blessed by the CIA, Kopp reported. That may sound conspiratorial, but consider: - Baric serves on an advisory group to U.S. intel called the she added, underscoring how the paper trail intersects with Barics advisory role to the intelligence community.
The implications for democratic oversight are stark. The latest Fauci docs illustrate something very disturbing about Congressional oversight of the intelligence community (or lack thereof), Kopp warned, noting that in July 2021 Fauci himself recommended that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) consult a handpicked circle of virologists as it probed the origins of COVID?19.
Barics background makes the emerging picture even more troubling for those who have long suspected that the pandemic may have stemmed from risky research rather than a random spillover from nature. According to Kopp, Baric served on the Biological Sciences Experts Group (BSEG), an advisory body that provides scientific expertise directly to the U.S. intelligence community, placing him at the nexus of high?level biodefense planning and cutting?edge virology.
In September 2015, the CIA commissioned a classified paper through the BSEG examining how a bioterrorist might engineer Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) into a pandemic?capable virus. Kopp argues that Baric, already regarded as one of the worlds foremost coronavirus specialists, would have been the obvious choice to contribute to such a project, given his unique expertise and his existing advisory role.
As a member of the BSEG and the world's top expert (the big cheese in coronaviruses, as one colleague called him) Baric would be the natural choice for this project, she wrote. The timing is especially notable because, at that very moment, Baric was working at the frontier of coronavirus manipulation in collaboration with Shi Zhengli of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the Chinese scientist widely known as Chinas Bat Lady.
In 2015, Baric and Shi co?authored a landmark study involving a chimeric SARS?like coronavirus, a type of experiment that has since become emblematic of the lab?origin controversy. The research involved inserting the spike protein of a bat coronavirus identified by Shis team into a SARS virus backbone, then testing the resulting chimeras ability to infect human airway cells and mice, thereby probing how close natureor the labmight be to producing a pandemic?capable pathogen.
Barics role did not end with that study; his name would later surface repeatedly in documents related to some of the most contentious pre?pandemic research proposals. Through Freedom of Information Act litigation, previously undisclosed details emerged about the 2018 DEFUSE proposal, a $14 million project led by EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak that sought Pentagon funding for experiments involving SARS?like bat coronaviruses, including work with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Those documents showed that Baric and Wuhan?linked researchers discussed experiments bearing striking similarities to distinctive features that would later appear in SARS?CoV?2. Among the most consequential elements was the proposed insertion of furin cleavage sites into SARS?like coronaviruses, a genetic modification that can dramatically enhance viral infectivity and host range.
SARS?CoV?2 subsequently emerged with a furin cleavage site at the S1/S2 junction of its spike protein, a feature that quickly became one of the central points of contention in the debate over whether the virus arose naturally or was engineered. Notes associated with the DEFUSE proposal also indicated that Baric had already generated SARS?like chimeras using receptor?binding domains from bat viruses, including work that apparently had not been fully disclosed in the public scientific literature.
The revelations prompted a blunt reaction from Matt Ridley, co?author with molecular biologist Alina Chan of Viral: The Search for the Origin of Covid?19. Game over, Ridley said, reacting to the DEFUSE disclosures. The latest revelations provide precise confirmation that all the many suspicious features of sars-cov-2 which imply it was man-made were set out in exhaustive detail in the DEFUSE proposal to which Wuhan Institute of Virology was a partner, he added, arguing that the proposal reads almost like a blueprint for the virus that later emerged.
Although the Pentagon ultimately rejected the DEFUSE proposal, the newly released CIA?related material suggests that other arms of the national?security state may have been more receptive to coronavirus?engineering concepts. According to Kopp, the classified 2015 paper on engineering MERS into a pandemic virus was approved by the NCPC, the National Counterproliferation and Biosecurity Center, a key component of the intelligence communitys effort to monitor and prevent weapons of mass destruction.
That institutional detail is not a mere bureaucratic footnote. Kopp previously reported that the NCPC strongly opposed the lab?leak hypothesis during the governments investigation into COVID?19s origins, aligning itself with a narrative that favored a natural spillover despite mounting circumstantial evidence pointing toward a research?related incident. Then?Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard later shut the center down, a move that has taken on new resonance as more information about its posture and activities has come to light.
Kopp also disclosed that she had heard an extraordinary account from inside the intelligence community that she did not initially publish. I didn't include this in my report, but I heard one official burst into tears when presented with evidence for a lab leak, she wrote, suggesting that at least some insiders were emotionally shaken by the implications of the evidence they were seeing.
Taken together, these strands raise a fundamental question that goes far beyond partisan skirmishing: What exactly did the intelligence community know about American scientists coronavirus?engineering work before the pandemic, and to what extent did it encourage or underwrite that research? Barics connections place him at a remarkable intersection of the story, linking elite academic virology, controversial gain?of?function?style experiments, and the classified world of U.S. biodefense planning.
He was one of the worlds leading coronavirus researchers, collaborating directly with Shi Zhengli and participating in experiments that created chimeric SARS?like viruses. His name appears repeatedly in the history of the DEFUSE proposal, and, according to Kopps reporting, he served on a scientific advisory group to the U.S. intelligence community at a time when the CIA was explicitly interested in how coronaviruses might be engineered into pandemic pathogens.
All of this must now be viewed alongside what the new documents reveal about Faucis own entanglement with the intelligence and defense establishments. The interagency records show that NIAID was not functioning solely as a conventional public?health agency focused on vaccines and therapeutics; instead, its programs were deeply interwoven with the governments post?9/11 biodefense strategy, including CIA initiatives involving biological threats and potential bioweapons.
Rutgers University molecular biologist Richard Ebright told the Daily Caller News Foundation that this relationship dates back to the early years of the War on Terror. Vice President Cheney assigned Fauci to head US biodefense research programs in 2002, including bioweapons-agents-development and bioweapons-agents-characterization research programs that approached, and arguably crossed, red lines set by the Biological Weapons Convention, Ebright said, describing a shift that placed immense power in the hands of unelected scientific bureaucrats.
The documents show early steps in the process of transferring funding for, and direction of, CIA and DoD biodefense projects to Faucis agency, NIAID, he added. Under Faucis leadership, NIAID would later fund EcoHealth Alliances Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence project beginning in 2014, a grant that included work with the Wuhan Institute of Virology and experiments using reverse genetics, receptor?binding assays, and humanized mice to test whether bat coronaviruses could cross species barriers into humans.
While Faucis agency was underwriting that research, Baric was collaborating directly with Shi Zhengli on SARS?like bat coronaviruses. Then COVID?19 emerged in Wuhan, the very city where the Wuhan Institute of Virology had been conducting high?risk coronavirus experiments, and where U.S.?funded projects had probed the boundaries of viral transmissibility and pathogenicity.
What followed has only intensified concerns that the same network of officials and scientists who helped build the pre?pandemic biodefense and research architecture also played a central role in shaping the narrative that dismissed a lab?related origin as a conspiracy theory. Kopp highlighted another revelation from the Fauci documents involving the intelligence communitys 2021 investigation into the pandemics origins, an inquiry that many conservatives already viewed with skepticism.
In July 2021, Fauci recommended that ODNI consult a group of virologists that included authors of the influential Proximal Origin paper, which was quickly weaponized by media and political actors to marginalize the lab?leak hypothesis. Two months later, according to Kopp, Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee asked ODNI during a classified briefing which scientists intelligence officials had consulted as part of their review.
ODNI refused to disclose the names. Now we know why! Kopp wrote, implying that the secrecy shielded a small circle of experts whose private doubts about a natural origin were at odds with their public messaging, and whose advice may have been anything but disinterested.
The episode is especially significant because internal communications later revealed that some of the Proximal Origin authors had privately expressed serious concerns that SARS?CoV?2 might have been engineered, even as they publicly argued that a laboratory origin was implausible. Their about?face dovetailed neatly with the interests of officials who had overseen or funded risky research and who now had every incentive to steer public debate away from any suggestion of U.S. complicity.
There have also been serious allegations from within the CIA itself about how the agency reached its COVID?origins assessment. Congressional investigators disclosed claims from a senior CIA whistleblower who alleged that six of seven members of a CIA team examining COVIDs origins initially believed the evidence supported a laboratory origin with low confidence, only to change their position after being offered a significant monetary incentive so that the agency could publicly maintain a posture of uncertainty.
That allegation has grown even more consequential as the CIA has since shifted toward assessing a research?related origin as more likely, effectively inching closer to the position that many independent analysts and conservative lawmakers have held for years. Long before COVID?19, the CIA had been cultivating relationships with biological scientists out of concern that engineered pathogens could become a major national?security threat, and Faucis NIAID was folded into that biodefense framework.
Baric was advising the intelligence community while conducting advanced coronavirus research. Baric and Shi were collaborating on SARS?like bat coronaviruses. Faucis agency was funding EcoHealth Alliance projects tied to Wuhan. And the CIA, through bodies like the BSEG and NCPC, was apparently asking scientists to explore how coronaviruses could be engineered into pandemic?capable viruses.
When a novel coronavirus with highly unusual characteristics erupted in Wuhan, some of the very institutions and individuals embedded in that pre?pandemic network moved aggressively to promote a natural origins narrative, while dissenting voices were sidelined or smeared. For those who favor transparency, limited government, and accountability, the pattern looks less like disinterested science and more like a coordinated effort to protect bureaucracies and reputations.
The central question now is what the broader American biodefense and intelligence establishment knew about coronavirus engineering before SARS?CoV?2 appearedwhat research it funded, what research it encouraged, what classified work was underway, and which scientists were involved in projects that may have pushed the boundaries of international norms. Sen. Rand Paul (R?KY) and other congressional investigators have spent years trying to untangle those relationships, often in the face of stonewalling from agencies that answer more readily to internal networks than to elected representatives.
Five years after SARS-CoV-2emerged inWuhan, the evidence thus far makes a convincing case for a laboratory-origin of the virus, indictingresearchersfor a pandemicthat sickened over 770 million people and killed over 7 million, one assessment noted, capturing the gravity of what is at stake if a lab?related origin is ultimately confirmed. The latest Fauci documents strongly suggest that the American public has still not been told the full story about how deeply its intelligence and health bureaucracies were involved in coronavirus research, and they indicate that there is considerably more left for Congressand the countryto uncover.
Login