US Backed Over 120 Biolabs Across the Globe, Tulsi Gabbard Unveils Declassified Findings

In a move that’s already stirring the policy community, former congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard has put a declassified intelligence document in the public domain. The paper, dated back to 2023, lays out a surprisingly large figure – more than 120 biological laboratories across the planet have received U.S. funding.

At first glance, the number itself is eye‑catching. But the real story lies in where that money ends up. According to the memo, the grants are scattered across Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and even a handful of Latin‑American nations. In many cases, the money is earmarked for “capacity building,” a euphemism that usually translates to better equipment, training on pathogen handling and, occasionally, work on what officials call “gain‑of‑function” research.

Gabbard’s decision to release the document wasn’t random. She’s been vocal for years about the need for greater transparency on U.S. bio‑security initiatives, especially after the pandemic spotlighted how interconnected— and vulnerable— the global health network really is. By making the intel public, she hopes to spark a broader conversation about oversight, consent, and the potential risks when advanced labs sit in regions with weak regulatory frameworks.

The reaction has been mixed. Some officials argue that the funding is essential to thwart emerging diseases before they cross borders, citing successes like improved Ebola surveillance in the Congo. Others, however, warn that the lack of clear reporting could sow distrust, especially in countries already wary of foreign influence. A senior State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, stressed that “all funding is strictly monitored and complies with both U.S. and host‑nation regulations.”

Critics also point out that the memo does not clarify how many of these labs are engaged in high‑risk experiments versus routine diagnostics. That ambiguity fuels speculation, especially among conspiracy‑prone circles that have linked U.S.-funded labs to the origins of COVID‑19. While there is no direct evidence tying any of the mentioned facilities to the pandemic, the lack of granular detail leaves room for wild narratives.

What’s clear is that the release has opened a window into a world most of us never see: the sprawling, sometimes opaque network of biolabs that sit at the front line of disease detection and, paradoxically, at the frontier of potential bio‑hazards. As the debate unfolds, policymakers, scientists and citizens alike will have to grapple with the delicate balance between preparedness and precaution.