Gabbard's Parting Shot: Declassified Docs Accuse Fauci of Wuhan Cover-Up

Spread love

By TRH World Desk

On her last day as DNI, Tulsi Gabbard released declassified documents alleging Dr. Fauci funded Wuhan gain-of-function research and misled Congress under oath.

New Delhi, June 19, 2026 — In a dramatic exit from the nation’s top intelligence post, outgoing Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, on what she described as her final day in office, released a tranche of declassified communications and documents that she said expose Dr. Anthony Fauci’s role in the COVID-19 origins controversy.

The release, framed as fulfilment of US President Trump’s “maximum transparency mandate,” lands like a bombshell — though one that critics will note arrives conveniently at the moment Gabbard cannot be questioned about it in her official capacity.

According to Gabbard’s statement, the declassified material makes three core allegations against Fauci. First, that as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, he directed millions of dollars in US taxpayer funding toward gain-of-function bat coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology — work her office describes as “now widely viewed as the source of the unintentional lab leak that sparked the pandemic.”

Second, that Fauci worked behind the scenes with handpicked scientific advisors to push the intelligence community toward endorsing a natural animal-origin narrative, thereby obscuring his own funding role.

Third, that he became the public face of pandemic policy while actively suppressing dissenting scientific voices.

The ODNI claimed the documents raise questions about interactions between Fauci, intelligence officials, and scientists involved in discussions over whether COVID-19 emerged naturally or through a laboratory-related incident.

Gabbard further alleged that senior intelligence analysts praised Fauci not as a policymaker but as what they internally called an “unbiased guide” to coronavirus experts — while deliberately sidelining scientists who challenged his conclusions.

Perhaps the most legally consequential claim in Gabbard’s statement is that Fauci lied to Congress. She alleged that during his 2024 testimony before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, Fauci denied ever speaking to any intelligence agency about COVID-19 — and that the correspondence being released today directly contradicts that sworn testimony.

Gabbard’s statement also described a pattern of alleged retaliation within the intelligence community against analysts who challenged the dominant COVID origins narrative.

Analysts who supported the lab leak hypothesis were reportedly told by managers that leadership would decide promotions — a pointed warning to fall in line. In one cited case, a contractor was terminated within days of coming forward as a whistleblower.

In another, senior leaders allegedly attempted to strip anonymity from whistleblowers and insisted that managers or attorneys be present during testimony sessions — moves Gabbard characterized as deliberate intimidation.

This release does not occur in a vacuum. In January 2025, former President Joe Biden issued Fauci a pre-emptive pardon, with Biden stating that investigations targeting individuals in public service could cause significant personal and financial harm — and stressing that the pardon should not be interpreted as evidence of wrongdoing. That pardon limits the immediate legal exposure Fauci faces regardless of what these documents contain.

The Fauci-related disclosures also follow another declassification effort by Gabbard announced on June 12, in which the ODNI claimed it had uncovered evidence of long-standing US government funding for more than 120 biological laboratories across over 30 countries, including facilities in Ukraine. The pattern suggests a deliberate final-week information campaign rather than a spontaneous transparency push.

It is also worth noting that the broader scientific and intelligence community remains divided on COVID origins. Several US intelligence agencies, including the FBI and the Department of Energy, have leaned toward a lab leak conclusion, while others have assessed a natural origin as more likely — and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence itself previously assessed the evidence as inconclusive.