Sworn Testimony vs. Leaked Files

Newly declassified files accuse Anthony Fauci of steering taxpayer money into risky Wuhan research and misleading Congress—raising hard questions about trust, accountability, and the people’s right to know.

Story Highlights

Tulsi Gabbard released declassified communications alleging Fauci funded gain-of-function work in Wuhan ^[1]^[2].
Documents allegedly contradict Fauci’s 2024 sworn testimony about contacts with intelligence officials ^[1]^[4].
A U.S. lab assessment treated a lab-origin as a serious possibility early in 2020 ^[3].
Some materials are redacted, and further verification is still pending ^[5].

Declassified Release Puts Funding And Testimony Under A Microscope

On her final day as Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard published declassified communications and documents that she says show Anthony Fauci directed millions in U.S. funds to dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. She also alleges Fauci influenced intelligence assessments on COVID-19’s origin and later denied such contacts under oath in 2024. Gabbard framed the release as part of a maximum-transparency push so Americans can see what was done with their money and why it was kept from them ^[1].

Coverage of the files states they include internal messages and assessments indicating U.S.-funded coronavirus work contemplated changes to spike proteins, receptor-adaptation tests, and trials in humanized mice working with Wuhan researchers. Reporting says an early Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory assessment weighed a possible lab origin alongside a natural spillover scenario, signaling that a lab path was not fringe within government science circles in mid-2020 ^[3].

What The Files Allegedly Contradict—and What We Still Do Not Know

Gabbard and several outlets say the documents directly clash with Fauci’s 2024 testimony that downplayed or denied his engagement with intelligence officials on these issues. Her statement argues he worked with politicized intelligence leaders to steer narratives away from a lab leak and to shield his funding decisions from scrutiny. As of publication, reporting notes that Fauci has not publicly answered this new batch of claims or addressed the specific communications Gabbard cited ^[1]^[4].

Some reporting points out that the public file set is heavily redacted and relies on internal Office of the Director of National Intelligence and intelligence community emails. That leaves open questions that Congress and inspectors general need to resolve, including the exact funding trail, detailed grant numbers, and line-item subawards. Firstpost notes that while U.S. support for risky coronavirus experiments in Wuhan has been documented before, these fresh files aim to tie those decisions to sworn statements and internal influence claims ^[5].

Why This Matters For Accountability, Policy, And Your Wallet

Taxpayers deserve to know who approved risky lab work and why it was kept quiet. Families who lost loved ones or jobs want honest answers, not shifting stories. If officials pushed talking points while controlling the purse strings, that strikes at transparent government. The Constitution charges Congress with oversight. That means follow the money, compel testimony, and secure all unredacted records needed to confirm or disprove claims now on the table—without delay or excuses ^[2]^[5].

Today, on my final day as Director of National Intelligence, I’m releasing never-before-seen communications and documents exposing how Dr. Fauci provided millions in US taxpayer dollars to fund dangerous Gain-of-Function research at the Wuhan lab, worked with politicized elements…

— Love World Peace (@LoveWorldPeace9) June 19, 2026

Policymakers can act on two fronts. First, lock down a full accounting of U.S. research dollars that touched Wuhan partners, including subgrants and proposed projects like those that contemplated modifying viruses and testing them in humanized mice. Second, set bright-line guardrails on high-risk pathogen research so no agency can nod it through behind closed doors again. Clear rules, open books, and real penalties for false statements can rebuild trust and protect both public health and liberty ^[2]^[3]^[5].