Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has released a cache of declassified government records detailing United States financial support for numerous biological laboratories operating globally, including in Ukraine. The disclosure, made public recently, confirms the scale of U.S. involvement in overseas biological research programs, a topic Gabbard had raised concerns about following Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
"Gabbard has stated plainly that these records prove what she and others were condemned for saying out loud years ago." — Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence
In 2022, Gabbard faced significant criticism, with some labeling her a "mouthpiece for the Kremlin," after she publicly questioned the presence and nature of American-funded biological laboratories in Ukraine. She maintained then that the American public deserved transparency regarding these facilities. The newly declassified documents from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) appear to corroborate the existence and extensive nature of these programs.
The records confirm that the United States has financially supported more than 120 biological laboratories operating across over 30 countries worldwide. A significant portion of these facilities are located in Ukraine, where more than 40 laboratories operated with U.S. financial backing, according to ODNI briefing slides. These documents detail not only financial investment but also the types of pathogens stored within these facilities and the nature of U.S.-funded activities.
Among the contents documented in the declassified files are collections of dangerous bacteria and viruses, some of which are remnants of the Soviet biological program. These pathogens have reportedly been preserved and maintained for decades since the Cold War. The inventory of pathogens named in the records includes highly dangerous agents such as anthrax, tuberculosis, plague, Ebola virus, Marburg virus, MERS, and SARS. Each of these carries the potential for severe human consequences if mishandled or deliberately released.
American investment extended beyond monetary contributions. The documents show that Ukrainian scientists received U.S.-funded instruction in working directly with hazardous pathogens. A separate documented initiative provided training for personnel in protocols specific to especially dangerous diseases, indicating a hands-on U.S. role in the operational aspects of these labs.
Physical infrastructure at these sites also received American funding. The records trace U.S.-funded construction and laboratory upgrades at locations including Kherson, Odesa, and various sites in western Ukraine. The engineering firm Black & Veatch is repeatedly identified in the documents as a leading contractor involved in these projects. The price tags for individual laboratory projects ranged from approximately $1.7 million to $3.5 million per site, all sourced from U.S. taxpayer funds. The cumulative investment across the entire Ukrainian network represents a substantial financial commitment that was largely undisclosed to the public.
A specific declassified assessment focuses on a veterinary research facility in Kharkiv, which received direct Pentagon funding through the Defense Department’s Biological Threat Reduction Program. This laboratory was found to be holding hundreds of pathogen samples, including Brucella bacteria, known to cause brucellosis. The assessment flagged the Kharkiv site as a potential vulnerability, particularly in the context of active combat operations in Ukraine. Officials warned that the facility could be targeted by Russian information operations or physically compromised through damage or capture, highlighting potential risks associated with the presence of such materials in a conflict zone.
One ODNI slide provides a broader perspective, charting what it explicitly terms a "web of connections" linking Ukrainian laboratories with various American federal agencies, academic institutions, private research organizations, and outside contractors. This network, according to the document, funded studies on highly contagious viruses like bird flu within high-security laboratory environments, further illustrating the comprehensive nature of U.S. engagement.
Gabbard has framed the entire disclosure as a critical transparency issue, asserting that the American public was deliberately kept in the dark about the significant scale and nature of U.S.-sponsored biological research programs operating on foreign soil. She argues that these records vindicate her earlier warnings.
Conversely, those who have historically defended the laboratories maintain their position, arguing that the facilities served legitimate purposes. Critics of the declassification efforts contend that the labs were crucial for securing unstable pathogen stockpiles and preventing biological threats from falling into dangerous hands, rather than serving any offensive weapons agenda. They emphasize the defensive nature of the Biological Threat Reduction Program, designed to mitigate risks from former Soviet biological weapons sites.
The debate over the intent of these laboratories — whether defensive or offensive — may, however, be overshadowed by the confirmed gap in public disclosure. Regardless of their ultimate purpose, the declassified records definitively confirm that the American government funded an extensive overseas biological research network. This network was never fully explained to the public, and the documented discrepancy between government actions and public information emerges at a time when questions about government credibility on scientific matters remain prominent.
