A US GOVERNMENT release about the existence of secret biological laboratories — or, at least, something that initially looks like that — was announced by outgoing Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on 12 June.

But much like previous Trump administration releases, the declassified information is likely to underwhelm anyone who reads it.

“Today, I’m releasing never before seen intelligence revealing new evidence of past US government funding for more than 120 biolabs in over 30 countries, including Ukraine,” Gabbard posted on X on 12 June, alongside a three-minute video.

The post continues: “In support of President Trump‘s Executive Order to end federal funding of dangerous gain of function research around the world, and increase transparency and accountability.”

The post included a link to a press release with a link to “newly declassified evidence” — though it is not clear what this evidence shows.

It does not contain any reference to “120 biolabs in over 30 countries”, nor US funding, nor to “gain of function” research — something that refers to studies where organisms or viruses are genetically altered to mimic potential mutations.

Rather than providing any new or interesting information, the release instead appears to be intended as fuel for vague and unfounded claims about Ukraine that were once strongly promoted in pro-Kremlin and conspiracy theory groups.

‘Biolabs’

What exactly is a biolab? There is an ambiguity about the term, which is what the conspiracy theory rests on.

“Biolab” can mean biological laboratory, which are common throughout the world. There are plenty of these in both Ukraine and Ireland.

However, it is also used as shorthand for biological weapons laboratories, which are outlawed by international treaty.

And often, the term is used to imply something in-between, like a biological laboratory that studies rare dangerous pathogens that would wreak havoc if they escaped.

This ambiguity has allowed claims around “Ukrainian biolabs” to take hold, which conflate evidence of biological laboratories — like those which screen for diseases or test vaccines — with “biolabs” where biological weapons are created.

Since around the time it invaded Ukraine, Russia has insinuated that biolabs in Ukraine have presented a threat of lab leaks, that they have been in breach of conventions against biological weapons or, in more extreme cases, that they could design diseases to target specific ethnic populations.

This last claim was made by a top general, as well as Russia’s representative to the UN, who warned that birds and bats were being used to spread diseases across the border to Russia.

Claims about Ukrainian biological weapons soon blended into the myriad reasons given by Russia for its invasion, such as Putin’s assertions that Ukraine was a neo-Nazi state, or that Zelenskyy was a drug addict.

However, claims about biolabs have since found a strong foothold in the English-speaking world.

Prominent far-right figures have echoed claims about biolabs in Ukraine, including Steve Bannon, Charlie Kirk, Tucker Carlson, and the president’s son Donald Trump Jr.

Gabbard also echoed similar claims around the time of Russia’s invasion, though she has chosen her words more carefully.

Instead, she has referred to a cover-up of US government-funded “research on dangerous pathogens” — a phrase, which in the context of the narrative being amplified, might make people think of biological weapons rather than, say, flu vaccines.

It is not the only time that Gabbard — who was initially elected as a Democratic congresswoman, though later quit the party to join the MAGA cause — has parroted Kremlin talking points.

She had blamed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on the “west” and had previously defended Syria’s now-deposed Russian-aligned regime, meeting with al-Assad numerous times and expressed scepticism that he was using chemical weapons during the civil war in Syria.

Gabbard announced her resignation as Director of National Intelligence, a role granted to her by Donald Trump, earlier this month. She is expected to leave the job at the end of June.

The release

On 12 June, Gabbard released a statement that claimed to reveal “Evidence of US Taxpayer-Funded Global Biolab Program”.

“Until now, evidence regarding the full existence and funding of these laboratories had been knowingly withheld from the American people,” the statement reads.

“The information surrounding the existence, history, locations and funding of these US funded biolabs has been intentionally covered up by powerful people falsely, claiming that they do not exist and accusing anyone who says otherwise to be foreign assets and traitors to America.”

The statement said that there are labs in Ukraine and that “many of these US government-funded biolabs are currently or have previously engaged in research using hazardous and highly contagious pathogens, in some cases to include dangerous Gain-of-Function research, with very little visibility or oversight”.

Reading this, it might be expected that the release would include never-before-seen evidence of gain-of-function research in Ukraine.

That is not what it shows.

Instead, the release consisted of four heavily redacted slides. The term gain-of-function isn’t mentioned once.

Bioweapons are mentioned, but only in relation to Ukraine’s “biocontainment” of Soviet-era pathogens, referring to the process of ensure they do not escape into the population. 

And although other dangerous diseases are mentioned, they are so removed from context that it is impossible to discern what, if anything is being alleged.

One examples just shows the names of diseases embedded in a block of redacted text:

A not-so-revealing passage from Gabbard's release.

Further, there are some glaring errors in these slides, most notably in a map of the second slide, supposedly showing the location of biological labs in Ukraine.

A map that looks a bit, but not actually, like Ukraine.

The names on the map refer to oblasts, the administrative areas of the Ukrainian state. However, there are some glaring mistakes, namely the location of Ukraine’s capital, Kyiv, which is given as being in south of the country, below Vinnytsia.

Kyiv is, in fact, to the north of Vinnytsia.

Another issue is the name “Cherniv”, given on the map in the same area as the real village of Cherniv. The issue is that, while all the other names refer to large administrative areas, Cherniv is a village of about 600 people.

Judging by social media and television depictions of the area, it appears to be a particularly unlikely place for a laboratory studying dangerous pathogens.

Ukrainian media have noted that it is possible that it may have been mistaking the small village with the oblast or city of Chernivtsi. Even if that were the case, the placement on the map is extremely far from that region.

One page of the release does list nine biological projects, seven of which had been completed. However, none of these show anything scandalous. One is a review of legislation and guidelines for veterinary research.

Three revolve around wild boar diseases, including a community outreach programme on how to prevent outbreaks.

A further issue is that it is not clear if the four slides were originally presented together, or when they were made. There is no obvious narrative thread between the slides, and the map specifically points out Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk — areas that have been controlled (either mostly or completely) by Russian forces for more than a decade.

It is also not clear what information on the slides is supposedly “knowingly withheld” or “intentionally covered up”, as Gabbard had put it.

US assistance to Ukrainian laboratories has been public information for years, and has been formalised since at least 2005 when the US Department of Defence assisted Ukraine’s containment of biological weapons left over from the Soviet era.

“Ukraine has never carried out activities related to the development, production or accumulation of biological weapons,” a 13 June statement by the Ukrainian foreign ministry reads.

“Cooperation between Ukraine and the United States in the field of biological safety for many years has been aimed exclusively at strengthening the capabilities of the public health system, epidemiological surveillance, laboratory diagnostics, biosafety and biosecurity.

“This is a normal civilian activity that meets international health standards and practices and is not related to any military goals,” the ministry said, dismissing claims of biological weapons development as Russian propaganda.

Although Gabbard is expected to leave the role of Director of National Intelligence before the end of the month, she seems intent on stoking conspiracy theories before she goes.

Another release on 18 June that she implies shows Anthony Fauci, the physician who led America’s fight against Covid-19, may have been responsible for creating the virus in the first place.

Those released documents contain some pages of what appear to be entirely blacked-out text. As with the Ukrainian documents, readers are presumably invited to create their own story to fill in the blanks.

The Journal’s FactCheck is a signatory to the International Fact-Checking Network’s Code of Principles. You can read it here. For information on how FactCheck works, what the verdicts mean, and how you can take part, check out our Reader’s Guide here. You can read about the team of editors and reporters who work on the factchecks here.