Declassified Files Reveal Fauci Knew Virus Origin Was Uncertain Early On

Declassified files finally show what Anthony Fauci knew about where COVID came from, and they tell a story far more tangled than his early public statements suggested. Dr. Fauci publicly backed the idea that the virus emerged naturally in nature, yet behind closed doors, scientists were already arguing over impossible mutations and lab accidents as early as February 2020. On February 3, he attended a secret meeting where experts heard that the Wuhan Institute of Virology had conducted gain-of-function research on the very receptor the virus uses to jump into human cells. Only two scientists on an earlier call thought the genetic sequence was natural, while everyone else remained unsure about how it appeared so suddenly. The group recorded a blunt consensus: the outbreak could have happened naturally or through a lab accident, and the evidence available at the time might never tell which one occurred. Six days later, when pressed by reporters about claims of an escape from a Wuhan biological-warfare facility, Fauci dismissed them as conspiracy theories without scientific basis. He told the press they remained in that realm of rumor rather than fact. The documents also show he recommended scientists for intelligence officers to consult during President Joe Biden's review, even after publicly identifying natural emergence as the most likely explanation. One official questioned whether investigators should trust a policymaker who had already expressed strong views on the answer, but another defended Fauci as a leading coronavirus expert. Dr. Anthony Fauci appeared before a Senate committee on Wednesday and invoked the Fifth Amendment in response to more than 100 questions from lawmakers. The records do not prove he concealed the pandemic's origin or manipulated intelligence officers or secretly believed COVID escaped from WIV. They simply reveal that the private scientific debate surrounding him was far less settled than his early public emphasis on natural emergence suggested. In June, then-director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released 94 pages of government records as part of a wider disclosure concerning the government's handling of the lab-leak theory. While the documents were released a month ago, they came just before Fauci appeared under subpoena to face questions about origins, pandemic-era policies, and what Republican lawmakers described as discrepancies in his personal diaries. Invoking the Fifth Amendment does not establish wrongdoing, and Fauci said he was following his lawyers' advice amid concerns that his answers could expose him to prosecution. The new records trace the private debate over COVID's origins back to the opening weeks of the outbreak. On January 31, 2020, scientists with backgrounds in bat coronaviruses contacted Fauci after identifying what an intelligence-community readout described as 'improbable mutations' that they could not immediately explain. They compared the virus's apparent evolution to a ten-step process where the first six stages and the final result were visible, but the connecting stages appeared to be missing entirely. That left them questioning whether the virus had been modified, adapted through serial passage, repeatedly grown in cells or animals, or evolved through natural intermediate forms that had not yet been discovered. A further call was held the next day, during which participants were told WIV had conducted gain-of-function research involving hACE2, the receptor the coronavirus uses to infect human cells. One official questioned whether investigators should accept recommendations from a policymaker who had already expressed strong views about the answer, but another defended Fauci as a leading coronavirus expert. The same account said Baric could not rule out a laboratory accident using the evidence then available. An intelligence readout noted that Ralph Baric, one of the scientists involved, said the virus did not display the signs of 'perfect engineering' he would expect from deliberate design and viewed that as evidence favoring natural evolution. On February 9, former House speaker Newt Gingrich asked Fauci about an 'urban legend' that the coronavirus had escaped from a biological-warfare center in Wuhan. 'I've heard these conspiracy theories,' Fauci responded.

And like all conspiracy theories, Newt, they're just conspiracy theories." He added that he could not say the scenario was impossible, but said it remained 'in the realm of conspiracy theories without any scientific basis.' The question concerned the more specific allegation of an escape from a biological-warfare facility, rather than every possible scenario involving an accidental laboratory release.

In private emails on April 16, 2020, then-NIH director Francis Collins asked Fauci whether the agency could help 'put down' what he called the 'very destructive conspiracy' surrounding reports of a possible Wuhan laboratory origin. Fauci advised against responding, writing: 'I would not do anything about this right now. It is a shiny object that will go away in time.' Fauci was asked in 2020 if COVID escaped from the lab, to which he said: 'I've heard these conspiracy theories'

A May 27, 2020 assessment from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory found that the conditions necessary for the accidental release of a laboratory-modified, human-adapted coronavirus were present at WIV in late 2019. The assessment said the institute possessed relevant viruses, expertise and experimental systems, making a laboratory incident plausible. But investigators did not determine that a leak had occurred and placed equal weight on three possibilities: laboratory modification, the escape of a naturally occurring virus from a laboratory or entirely natural transmission.

A June 7, 2021, memo titled 'Quick Recap of 4 June Dr Fauci Briefing' details how intelligence officials briefed Fauci about unresolved evidence surrounding COVID's origins. According to the memo, Fauci recommended that intelligence officers examine a study he believed offered a 'clear indication' that COVID had emerged naturally. He argued that the failure to identify an infected animal did not disprove that theory, noting that tracing the origins of previous viruses had taken years or remained impossible.

Fauci also recommended several US scientists for the intelligence community to consult as it continued examining COVID's origins. The scientists' names were redacted, and the documents do not reveal whether they were contacted or influenced the final assessment. Another official questioned whether the National Intelligence Council should accept recommendations from a policymaker, 'particularly given the various strong views on the subject and statements regarding their own conclusions.'

In a July 14 response, a colleague defended the decision to pursue Fauci's recommendations, arguing that he was not acting as a policymaker but as a subject-matter expert. 'Given Dr Fauci's background, we absolutely would like to follow up on his outreach suggestions,' the official wrote. 'He's a SME with a wealth of knowledge about current and historical research who probably knows better than most who the real Coronavirus experts are.'

The final intelligence assessment did not conclude that COVID emerged naturally or show that Fauci's recommendations determined its findings. It said both natural exposure and a laboratory incident remained plausible, with intelligence agencies divided over which was more likely. Most agencies also assessed with low confidence that the virus probably was not genetically engineered, noting that its unusual furin cleavage site could have developed naturally.

Fauci has since maintained that an accidental laboratory origin is not inherently a conspiracy theory, distinguishing it from allegations that COVID was deliberately created as a biological weapon or caused by research funded by his agency.