Tulsi Gabbard, once pilloried for flagging U.S.-backed research sites overseas, is now leading a formal review of hundreds of foreign labs funded by American taxpayers, and that shift is forcing critics and agencies to reckon with prior denials and guarded statements about biological research abroad.
Back in 2022, Gabbard drew heat for a blunt warning about labs overseas, and she did not back down when she said “there are 25-30 U.S.-funded biolabs in Ukraine. According to the U.S. government, these biolabs are conducting research on dangerous pathogens.” Her message was simple: these facilities needed immediate attention and safeguard changes. She argued forcefully that “these labs need to be shut down immediately, and the pathogens that they hold need to be destroyed.”
The backlash was swift and severe, with prominent voices accusing her of spreading dangerous misinformation and echoing foreign narratives. Those attacks came despite admissions from U.S. officials that Ukraine hosted biological research sites and that American programs had provided support. In hearings and public statements, officials used cautious language that nonetheless confirmed collaboration and concern about what might happen if facilities fell into hostile hands.
https://x.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1502960938147729413?s=20
At the time, one senior diplomat told senators straight out that “Ukraine has biological research facilities” and warned that “Russian forces may be seeking to gain control” of “research materials.” Intelligence leadership also testified that Ukraine “operates a little over a dozen” biolabs and that the U.S. had “provided assistance” “in the context of biosafety.” They acknowledged a real risk: “some of the material that’s there that is not intended for weapon purposes but nevertheless could be used in dangerous ways.”
Political figures piled on, framing the disclosure as reckless and even traitorous. Mitt Romney publicly criticized Gabbard as “parroting false Russian propaganda” and spreading “treasonous lies” that “may well cost lives.” A fellow Republican labeled the video “Actual Russian propaganda. Traitorous.” Those reactions hardened the narrative that raising uncomfortable facts was itself disloyal.
Over the last four years more facts have come into public view and the posture toward these labs has shifted. Gabbard now heads an effort reviewing more than 120 foreign laboratories that received U.S. funding, aiming to catalog locations, inventories, and the nature of the work carried out inside. Her office says investigators will determine whether dangerous gain-of-function work is occurring and assess vulnerabilities that could imperil public health.
Gabbard framed the effort in stark terms: “The COVID-19 pandemic revealed the catastrophic global impact research on dangerous pathogens in biolabs can have,” she said. “Yet despite these obvious dangers, politicians, so-called health professionals, like Dr. Fauci, and entities within the Biden administration’s national security team lied to the American people about the existence of these US-funded and supported biolabs and threatened those who attempted to expose the truth.” That charge touches a raw nerve about transparency and trust.
Officials at the office reported more than 40 of the labs under review are in Ukraine and could “be at risk of compromise” due to the war. That renders the inquiry urgent: conflict zones magnify the chances that materials, equipment, or data could be diverted, misused, or simply lost. The review aims to map where risks concentrate and what oversight gaps allowed them to widen.
Internal critics of prior messaging say the earlier approach was part of a broader information strategy meant to blunt foreign narratives while avoiding blowback at home. Documents and statements suggested officials tried to “shape the public narrative” to both counter malign influence and obscure sensitive domestic ties to research in conflict zones. The result was a public mix of denials, half admissions, and technical qualifiers that left many citizens confused.
The State Department at one point insisted with careful wording that “the United States does not own or operate any chemical or biological laboratories in Ukraine.” That stance drew attention because it rejected only a narrow claim about ownership and operation while not denying cooperation on bio-related projects. The line between collaboration on public health and research that could pose dual-use risks is now part of the debate.
Voices in the current administration framed the new investigation as corrective and necessary. “The prior administration bankrolled dangerous gain-of-function research and foreign biolabs with American tax dollars, then deliberately hid it from the American people,” Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said. “Under President Trump’s leadership, DNI Tulsi Gabbard and the entire Cabinet are righting these historic wrongs and delivering justice for our warfighters and the ones they protect,” he added, closing with the declaration, “The era of lies and betrayal is over.”
As the probe proceeds, it will reshape the story that began as a lone voice sounding an alarm and then became fodder for political attacks. The questions now are operational and strategic: how many sites need oversight, what exactly was funded, and how to ensure research that benefits public health cannot be repurposed to harm. The answers could alter policy on international biosecurity for years to come.
