In one of her last acts as director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard released hundreds of pages of files related to Dr. Anthony Fauci’s role in the debate over the origins of COVID-19, including his alleged efforts to shape intelligence assessments and his testimony to Congress. These files do more than revive old questions about Fauci’s credibility. They show that many of the people dismissed as conspiracy theorists deserved to be taken seriously.
From the lab-leak theory of COVID-19’s origin to questions about gain-of-function research, voices across social media and even inside the government were ignored, ridiculed, or silenced. The media often framed skepticism about China’s role in the pandemic as xenophobia and reported extensively on a wave of anti-Asian hate that followed the outbreak. But asking whether a virus first detected in Wuhan might have escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan was never inherently racist. It was an obvious question.
Among the newly released files is a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory assessment dated May 27, 2020, about a month after President Donald Trump publicly raised the possibility of a Chinese lab-leak origin. The assessment reportedly found that the Wuhan Institute of Virology had the capabilities, materials, and research programs necessary for a laboratory-origin scenario.
The report did not conclusively prove that the virus was engineered or that a lab leak occurred. But it did show that serious government analysts believed the possibility deserved serious consideration. While this information was available inside the government, Fauci continued to publicly downplay the possibility that the virus could have originated in a laboratory.
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) was one of the first American politicians to express suspicion that the virus may have come from a laboratory in February 2020. One article published in May 2020 condemned opinions like his, citing a scientist who said there was “exactly zero evidence or data of this having any connection to a lab.”
The theory that the origins of COVID-19 were, in some way, unnatural was deemed “fringe,” “outlandish,” and “unsubstantiated.”
Another revelation contained in these files is communications about what Fauci knew about the origin of COVID-19 at the time of his testimony to Congress.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) memorably grilled Fauci in May 2021 about his knowledge of research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology before the outbreak. Fauci repeatedly rejected Paul’s claims about U.S.-funded gain-of-function research and continued to favor the natural-origin theory.
According to the files, between Paul’s questioning of Fauci in May and July 2021, Fauci spoke with CIA officials about the possible origins of the virus. The doctor particularly questioned China’s early response and the “early illnesses detected at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”
This information does not necessarily add much to what had already been reported about U.S.-funded coronavirus research in Wuhan. But it does raise new questions about what Fauci knew, when he knew it, and whether his public testimony fully reflected the uncertainty that existed inside the government.
The problem with the timeline of who said what about the virus’s origin is that, in one sense, it no longer matters. Politicians who raised these questions early may feel vindicated, and they should. But the more important issue is what happened to the Americans who questioned the official narrative before it was safe to do so.
Even though the height of the pandemic was only five years ago, Americans are already at risk of forgetting how aggressively dissent was punished. Social media companies restricted, labeled, or banned users who challenged the prevailing consensus. Twitter banned then-New York Times reporter Alex Berenson over his comments about the virus and vaccines. Professional athletes faced fines or suspensions for refusing to comply with coronavirus vaccine mandates.
Everyday Americans were turned into social pariahs, faced damaged careers, and were publicly humiliated for questioning claims that later proved far less certain than officials had suggested. Much of this happened because many of the scientists and public health officials entrusted with public confidence offered partial truths, withheld relevant information, or treated legitimate uncertainty as misinformation.
Conservative commentator Steve Bannon popularized the saying, “There are no conspiracies, but there are no coincidences.” When it comes to the origins of COVID-19, that line may be closer to the truth than many people wanted to admit.
RAND PAUL IS STILL PUSHING FOR A FAUCI PROSECUTION. IS IT FINALLY GOING TO HAPPEN?
Fauci should face serious legal and congressional scrutiny. If prosecutors can prove that he misled Congress, he should be held accountable. But no indictment, prosecution, or conviction can undo the years of censorship, hardship, and public shaming Americans endured because they questioned the official pandemic narrative.
Those who were called “conspiracy theorists” were often just early skeptics of a story that deserved far more scrutiny than it received. It remains to be seen whether any indictments, prosecutions, or convictions will come from these newly released files. But one thing is already clear: On COVID-19’s origins, the people dismissed as conspiracy theorists were right to be suspicious.