2026-06-23T15:49:29.751Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/23/politics/covid-19-gabbard-fauci-claims
- 前国家情报总监土尔西·加巴德公布了内部文件，称这些文件能证明安东尼·福奇博士资助了引发新冠疫情的研究。
- 这些文件包含关于病毒可能起源的情报讨论，但并未就疫情如何暴发给出明确答案。
- 文件同样无法证明加巴德的指控，即福奇操纵情报或在2024年国会作证时撒谎；他2024年在国会的发言的确切含义尚不明确。
本文由AI生成摘要，并经CNN编辑审核。
在上周担任国家情报总监的最后一天，土尔西·加巴德公布了内部文件，她声称这些文件能证实有关安东尼·福奇博士和新冠疫情的一系列指控。
事实并非如此。这些文件远不足以佐证加巴德对福奇的各项指控。
最值得注意的是：这些文件完全无法证明“福奇资助了引发新冠疫情的武汉实验室研究”，尽管加巴德的团队在其官方网站公布文件时使用的加粗标题中就提出了这一主张。虽然文件中包含情报界内部对新冠疫情可能起源的部分讨论，但并未提供任何明确答案。
广告反馈
文件同样无法证实加巴德在社交媒体上周发布的帖子（该内容也被发布在网站上）中提出的指控，即福奇与情报官员合作“压制有关其行为的真相”。尽管文件包含福奇2021年就病毒可能起源向中情局提供建议和意见的摘要，但并未显示他“操纵了情报”。
文件也无法证明加巴德在视频中提出的指控，即福奇“2024年在国会撒谎”，尽管人们可以就相关那句六字评论的准确性展开合理辩论。记录显示，福奇的发言是在一段复杂的多轮问答末尾做出的，因此其言论的确切含义并不明确。
福奇于2022年从联邦政府退休，此前他担任美国国家过敏和传染病研究所所长38年，并担任时任总统乔·拜登的首席医疗顾问两年。他未就本文的置评请求作出回应。
加巴德公布的文件中，完全没有涉及病毒起源问题的证据，更无法佐证该网站标题中加粗的“福奇资助了引发新冠疫情的武汉实验室研究”这一主张。
文件中的第一份文件是加州一家联邦资助实验室2020年5月的分析报告的大幅删减版，该报告为美国情报机构提供支持。该分析的存在已于2021年被媒体报道，报告指出，2019年中后期，中国武汉病毒研究所“具备实验室改造病毒意外泄漏的所有必要条件”，“具体而言，是一种能够识别人类细胞受体的冠状病毒”。该报告对“新冠疫情源自实验室改造病毒”的理论，与“疫情由自然病毒暴发或自然病毒意外泄漏引发”的理论给予了“同等权重”。
这份分析对于那些认为当时部分联邦官员、科学家和媒体对实验室泄漏理论过于不屑一顾的人来说，是有力的佐证；它表明，早在疫情初期，一些与政府有关联的专家就已经认真对待这一观点。然而，该分析显然无法证明疫情确实是由实验室泄漏引发的，更无法证明泄漏源于福奇资助的研究。
事实上，文件中包含一封2023年的电子邮件，一名姓名被删减的官员在邮件中辩称，2020年5月的分析报告无法证实其核心主张，即武汉实验室在2019年中后期具备泄漏实验室改造病毒的“所有必要条件”，该官员称“我们现在没有，2020年也没有任何情报显示武汉病毒研究所拥有潜在的前体病毒”。文件中还包含2020年9月的一封电子邮件，一名姓名被删减的官员表示，“我们没有令人信服的证据表明中国故意制造了这种病毒，情报界对于实验室意外泄漏自然毒株还是自然暴发更有可能这一问题尚无共识”。
关于举报件处理的文件内容
文件显示了情报界内部就如何处理一起举报件展开的讨论，该举报件称福奇在2021年作证时撒谎，当时他表示美国国立卫生研究院（NIH）“从未也并未向武汉病毒研究所资助功能获得性研究”。（科学家们对于 NIH 资助的武汉相关研究是否属于“功能获得性研究”存在分歧。）尽管文件可能会引发关于情报界如何处理该举报件的合理疑问，但文件并未显示福奇曾试图压制该举报。
文件显示，2021年8月11日，时任情报界代理监察长塔玛拉·约翰逊写道，该举报件并非涉及情报界事务——其一，福奇并非情报界官员——同时，将该举报件转交给监督福奇所领导的卫生机构的监察长也“毫无意义”。
约翰逊写道，由于举报是匿名提交的，他们无法跟进获取更多信息；举报件所依据信息的密级意味着他们只能向卫生监察长分享“非常有限”的信息；而且当时关于福奇证词准确性的公开争议已经存在，因此“极有可能”卫生监督机构已经知晓他发言不准确的指控。
五天后，时任国家情报总监艾薇儿·海恩斯办公室的高级律师克里斯托弗·方宗为海恩斯提供了一份谈话要点草稿，其中提到“一个想法”是让约翰逊将举报件转交给卫生监察长，并确保该官员能够获取相关情报。但三天后，方宗表示他们决定改为建议将举报件转交给时任拜登任命的卫生部长泽维尔·贝塞拉，后者负责监督福奇领导的联邦机构。
方宗第二封邮件的措辞让外界难以解读他为何做出这一调整。（方宗在给海恩斯的邮件中写道：“我认为关键在于，我们看到的情况与贝塞拉部长此前对你说的一致——他们已经考虑过此事，福奇博士也一再强调 NIH 未在武汉病毒研究所开展功能获得性研究。”）批评人士有理由认为，将举报件转交给内阁部长这样的政治人物，无异于将其搁置。
但文件中并未显示任何内容表明福奇本人曾推动情报界将举报件转交给贝塞拉。
文件包含2021年6月福奇与中情局人员就新冠疫情可能起源举行会议的非正式摘要。此次会议被描述为中情局就2021年5月一份关于疫情“难以捉摸”起源的情报分析报告要点向福奇做的简报。
其中一份摘要称，福奇建议情报官员阅读一篇他认为能“明确显示新冠病毒自然起源”的学术论文——他在公开言论中一贯表示，他认为病毒可能源自自然——并建议情报官员联系一组“密切关注该问题”的美国科学家。
加巴德团队的在线声明谴责了福奇推荐的学术论文，并抱怨福奇“挑选”专家为情报界提供建议。但摘要显示，中情局“已经在联系或计划联系其中一些人员”，文件中也没有迹象表明福奇在下达命令、做出情报决策或修改情报文件，而只是向中情局表达了个人观点。加巴德可以自由主张文件显示情报界成员过于顺从福奇的观点，但这只能说明情报界决策存在缺陷，而非福奇的问题。
摘要还称，福奇建议中情局就武汉研究所研究人员患病情况提出相关问题，这显然是指2019年秋季据称患病的研究人员。摘要还称，福奇建议中情局获取中国关于穿山甲研究的关键细节，文件显示中情局在会议中曾向福奇提及此事；当时人们曾质疑这些哺乳动物是否可能是将病毒传播给人类的中间宿主。
加巴德团队的在线声明解释了她在视频中所说的文件证明福奇2024年在国会撒谎的含义。声明称，文件显示福奇在一次委员会听证会上回答是否曾与任何美国情报机构“就病毒研究进行过交谈”时给出了虚假答案。
但委员会听证会的视频显示，福奇当时的发言含义远不如加巴德团队所说的那样明确。福奇那句有争议的话——“据我所知没有”——是在一段复杂的多轮问答末尾说出的，最后一个问题并未使用“就病毒研究进行交谈”的表述。
首先，共和党众议员布拉德·温斯特鲁普问道：“你是否或曾经知晓美国国务院在2005年发出过警告，称中国政府正在研制生物武器？”福奇回答：“我对此并不知情。”接着，温斯特鲁普问道：“你是否曾与任何人在情报界讨论过中国的生物武器计划？”福奇回应：“据我所知，我从未与任何人讨论过中国的生物武器计划。”
随后温斯特鲁普问道：“在新冠疫情之前、期间或之后，你是否曾与联邦调查局、中情局、国防情报局或任何美国情报机构就任何形式的病毒研究进行过交谈？”但他说的是“之前”，并未说明具体时间范围，因此福奇又回到了生物武器的话题上，谈到了他在2001年炭疽袭击期间与情报机构的对话。
最终他们展开了如下对话：
温斯特鲁普：“但你是否曾在任何时间就任何形式的病毒研究进行过交谈？”
福奇：“我再说一次，当时有人担心基地组织可能正在使用或可能使用生物武器。我们曾就这种可能性与情报机构进行过讨论。”
温斯特鲁普：“当然。但与新冠疫情无关，对吗？”
福奇：“据我所知，关于新冠疫情的部分没有。”
因此，温斯特鲁普一直试图让福奇承认他是否就与新冠疫情相关的病毒研究与情报机构进行过交谈。但由于福奇当时正在谈论20年前他与情报机构就炭疽和生物武器展开的对话，温斯特鲁普才插入了最后一个问题（“但与新冠疫情无关，对吗？”），这才引出了福奇那句有争议的话“据我所知，关于新冠疫情的部分没有”；而且温斯特鲁普在最后一个问题中并未使用“就病毒研究进行交谈”的表述，因此福奇的话可以被解读为他是否就新冠疫情作为生物武器与情报机构进行过交谈。
新公布的文件中没有任何内容显示福奇确实在中情局会议上谈论过新冠疫情和生物武器，也没有任何内容显示他曾在其他时间与情报机构就此展开过讨论。因此，即使福奇在中情局会议上的发言符合“就病毒研究与该机构进行过交谈”的描述，这些文件也远不能确凿证明他在国会撒谎。
平心而论，对于福奇的批评者来说，文件确实表明福奇在随后的发言中并未完整讲述中情局会议的情况；他说“在新冠疫情相关调查开始后，我曾被情报机构通报过不同实验室可能存在的活动情况；我曾被情报机构通报过相关信息”。文件确实将中情局会议描述为向福奇进行的“简报”，但也显示福奇除了接收信息外，还向中情局表达了多种观点。
这并不意味着加巴德团队强调的那句话是谎言——而且无论如何，加巴德周六在社交媒体上声称“有途径”就2024年的证词起诉福奇，这一说法显然没有依据。拜登已赦免福奇在2014年至2025年1月19日担任政府公职期间可能犯下的任何联邦罪行。
CNN的布伦达·古德曼和莎拉·奥沃莫赫勒为本报道撰稿。
Why the Covid-19 documents Gabbard released don’t prove her claims about Fauci
2026-06-23T15:49:29.751Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/23/politics/covid-19-gabbard-fauci-claims
- Former Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released internal documents she said prove Dr. Anthony Fauci funded research that sparked Covid-19.
- The documents include intelligence discussions about possible virus origins but provide no clear answers about how the pandemic began.
- The files also do not prove Gabbard’s assertions that Fauci manipulated intelligence or lied to Congress in 2024 testimony; the precise meaning of his 2024 comment to Congress is unclear.
AI-generated summary was reviewed by a CNN editor.
On her final day as director of national intelligence last week, Tulsi Gabbard released internal documents that she claimed prove a series of damning facts about Dr. Anthony Fauci and the Covid-19 pandemic.
They don’t. The documents fall far short of corroborating various Gabbard claims about Fauci.
Most notably: The documents do not come close to proving that “Fauci Funded Wuhan Lab Research That Sparked COVID,” though that’s the assertion Gabbard’s team made in the bolded headline it used on the director’s official website announcing the document release. While the documents include some discussions within the intelligence community about the possible origins of Covid-19, they don’t provide any clear answers.
Ad Feedback
Nor do the documents confirm Gabbard’s claim in a social media https://www.instagram.com/reel/DZxYpIauqSl/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== last week, which was repeated on the website, that Fauci worked with intelligence officials “to suppress the truth about his actions.” And while the documents include summaries of advice and opinions Fauci offered the CIA during a 2021 briefing about the virus’ possible origins, they don’t show that he “manipulated intelligence.”
They also don’t prove Gabbard’s claim in the video that Fauci “lied to Congress in 2024,” though there can be reasonable debate about the accuracy of his six-word comment in question. The record shows that Fauci’s remark came at the end of a convoluted multi-question exchange, making the precise meaning of his words unclear.
Fauci retired from the federal government in 2022 after 38 years as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and two years as then-President Joe Biden’s chief medical advisor. He did not respond to a request for comment for this article.
The documents released by Gabbard contain nothing remotely resembling proof on the question of how the virus originated – and certainly not proof for the bolded claim on the director’s website that “Fauci Funded Wuhan Lab Research That Sparked COVID.”
The first document in the files is a heavily redacted version of a May 2020 analysis from a federally funded laboratory in California that supports US intelligence agencies. The analysis, whose existence was reported in the media in 2021, found that “all of the necessary conditions” for an accidental release of a lab-modified virus were present at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology in mid-to-late 2019, “specifically a coronavirus adapted to recognize human cell receptors.” The analysis placed “equal weight” on the theory that Covid-19 came from a lab modification as it did on the theory that the pandemic was sparked by a natural virus outbreak or a lab leak of a naturally-occurring virus.
The analysis is valid ammunition for people who felt some federal officials, scientists and news outlets were unduly dismissive of lab-leak theories at the time; it shows that some experts connected to the government were, from early in the pandemic, taking the idea seriously. However, the analysis clearly doesn’t prove that the pandemic was indeed caused by a lab leak, much less that it was caused by a lab leak that resulted from research Fauci funded.
In fact, the documents include a 2023 email in which an official whose name is redacted argues that the May 2020 analysis doesn’t substantiate its key claim that the Wuhan lab had “all of the necessary conditions” in mid-to-late 2019 for a leak of a lab-modified virus, saying “we do not now, nor did we back in 2020, have ANY reporting suggesting [Wuhan Institute of Virology]” had access to a potential precursor virus. And the documents also include a September 2020 email in which an official whose name is redacted says that “we do not see compelling evidence that China deliberately manufactured this virus, and there is no [intelligence community] consensus on whether an accidental lab release of a natural strain or a natural outbreak is more likely.”
What the documents show about the handling of a whistleblower complaint
The documents show internal discussions about how to handle a whistleblower complaint that claimed Fauci had lied to Congress when he testified in 2021 that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) “has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.” (There is disagreement among scientists about whether or not certain Wuhan work that was funded with NIH grant money constituted “gain-of-function research.”) While the documents may prompt valid questions about how the intelligence community handled the complaint, the documents do not show that Fauci worked to suppress it.
The documents show that on August 11, 2021, the acting inspector general for the intelligence community at the time, Tamara Johnson, wrote that the complaint wasn’t about an intelligence community matter – for one, Fauci wasn’t an intelligence community official – but also that there would be “no merit” in referring the complaint to the inspector general who watches health entities like Fauci’s.
Johnson wrote that the complaint having been made anonymously left them unable to follow up to get additional information, that the classified status of the complaint’s underlying information meant they could share only “very limited” information with the health inspector general, and that the fact there was already a public dispute about the accuracy of Fauci’s testimony made it “highly probable” that the health watchdog would already be aware of the allegation he had spoken inaccurately.
Five days later, a top lawyer in then-national intelligence director Avril Haines’ office, Christopher Fonzone, provided draft talking points for Haines that said “one idea” was for Johnson to transmit the whistleblower complaint to the health inspector general and make sure that official had access to the relevant intelligence. But three days later, Fonzone said they had decided to instead recommend referring the complaint to Xavier Becerra, then the Biden-appointed health secretary who oversaw the federal institute Fauci led.
The wording of Fonzone’s second email leaves it hard for an outsider to decipher why he was saying the change was made. (Fonzone wrote to Haines, “I think the key thing is that what we’ve seen is consistent with the point that Secretary Becerra made to you – that this is something they’ve considered and that Dr. Fauci has point he’s repeated about the NIH not funding gain-of-function at the WIV.”) Critics are entitled to make an argument that a referral to a political figure like a Cabinet secretary was tantamount to burying the complaint.
But the documents do not include anything showing that Fauci himself worked to get the intelligence community to refer the complaint to Becerra.
The documents contain informal summaries of a meeting Fauci had with people from the CIA in June 2021 on the subject of the possible origins of Covid-19. The meeting was described as a CIA briefing on the key points of a May 2021 intelligence analysis on the “elusive” origins of the pandemic.
One summary said Fauci recommended that the intelligence officials read an academic paper he believed showed “a clear indication of natural origins of COVID-19” – he consistently said in public comments that he believed the virus likely had a natural origin – and that the intelligence officials contact a group of US scientists who “closely follow this issue.”
The online statement from Gabbard’s team denounced the academic paper Fauci suggested and complained that Fauci “provided hand-picked” experts to advise the intelligence community. But the summary said the CIA was “already in contact/in the plans to contact some of these individuals,” and there is no indication from the documents that Fauci was issuing orders, making intelligence decisions or changing intelligence documents rather than simply expressing opinions to the CIA. Gabbard is free to make her argument that the documents show members of the intelligence community were too deferential to Fauci’s views, but that would be a flaw in their decision-making, not Fauci’s.
The summary also said Fauci suggested questions the CIA should ask about the cases of researchers at the Wuhan institute who had become sick, an apparent reference to the researchers believed to have fallen ill in the fall of 2019. And the summary said Fauci suggested that the CIA obtain key details of Chinese research on pangolins that the documents suggest the CIA mentioned to him in the meeting; there were questions at the time about whether these mammals might have been an intermediate host that transmitted the virus to humans.
The online statement from Gabbard’s team explained what she meant when she said in the video that the documents show he lied to Congress in 2024. It says the documents show he gave a false answer when asked at a committee hearing whether he had spoken to any US intelligence agency “concerning viral research.”
But the video of the committee hearing shows that the meaning of Fauci’s comment at the hearing was much less clear than Gabbard’s team suggests. Fauci uttered the words in question – “Not to my knowledge about Covid” – at the end of a convoluted multi-part exchange in which the final question did not use the words “concerning viral research.”
First, Republican Rep. Brad Wenstrup asked him, “Are you or were you ever aware that the US State Department in 2005 issued warnings that the Chinese government was working on the creation of bioweapons?” Fauci said, “I was not aware of that.” Next, Wenstrup asked, “Did you ever discuss the Chinese bioweapons program with anyone in the intelligence community?” Fauci responded, “I’ve never discussed the Chinese bioweapons program, to my knowledge, with anybody.”
Then Wenstrup asked, “Before, during, or after the Covid-19 pandemic, did you speak to the FBI, CIA, DIA, or any US intelligence agency concerning viral research of any kind?” But he said “before,” without saying how long ago he was talking about, so Fauci returned to the subject of bioweapons and spoke of conversations he had with intelligence agencies amid the anthrax attacks back in 2001.
Eventually they arrived at this exchange:
Wenstrup: “But did you at any time talk to – concerning viral research of any kind?”
Fauci: Again, I say that at the time, that there was concern about the fact that al Qaeda may have been using or potentially using bioweapons. We had discussions with intelligence agencies about that possibility.”
Wenstrup: “Sure. But not as related to, say, Covid-19?”
Fauci: “Not to my knowledge about Covid.”
So … Wenstrup had been trying to get Fauci to say whether he talked to intelligence agencies about any viral research related to Covid-19. But because Fauci was speaking about two-decades-old discussions with intelligence agencies about anthrax and bioweapons before Wenstrup interjected with the final question (“But not as related to, say, Covid-19?”) that prompted the Fauci words in dispute (“Not to my knowledge about Covid”), and because Wenstrup didn’t use the words “concerning viral research” in that final question, Fauci’s words could be interpreted as a comment about whether he had talked with intelligence agencies in relation to Covid-19 as a bioweapon.
Nothing in the newly released documents shows that Fauci did talk about Covid-19 and bioweapons in the CIA meeting or with an intelligence agency at another time. So even if Fauci’s comments in the CIA meeting qualify as talking with the agency about viral research, these documents leave it far from indisputable that he lied to Congress.
In fairness to Fauci critics, the documents do suggest Fauci wasn’t telling the full story of the CIA meeting with his next comment in the exchange; he said that “after the investigations began about Covid, I was briefed by intelligence agencies about possibilities of there being activities going on in different laboratories; I was briefed by intelligence agencies.” The documents do describe the CIA meeting as a “briefing” for Fauci, but also show Fauci expressed various opinions to the CIA in addition to receiving information.
That doesn’t make the comment Gabbard’s team highlighted a lie – and, regardless, there’s no apparent basis for Gabbard’s Saturday claim on social media that “there is a path” to prosecuting Fauci over the 2024 testimony. Biden granted Fauci a pardon for any federal offenses that may have arisen from his government positions from 2014 through January 19, 2025.
CNN’s Brenda Goodman and Sarah Owermohle contributed to this article.