[Updated with additional details on February 6, 2025]
Quick Overview:
- New CIA Finding (January 2025): COVID-19 “most likely” began from a lab incident in Wuhan, but this conclusion carries a “low confidence” rating—meaning evidence remains limited or uncertain.
- House Oversight Committee report (December 2024): Reaches a similar lab-origin conclusion, citing factors like the virus’s furin cleavage site and WIV’s history of bat coronavirus research.
- Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt’s remarks: She described the lab-leak theory as “confirmable truth,” citing the CIA’s findings. Critics note the agency’s “low confidence” caveat implies open questions remain.
- Scientific studies in major journals: Multiple peer-reviewed papers (e.g. in Science and Nature) point to a plausible zoonotic origin (animal-to-human spillover), underscoring that no definitive proof has yet emerged for either scenario.
- Takeaway: While the CIA and some government agencies lean toward a possible lab incident, direct, conclusive evidence is lacking. Many experts emphasize further data—especially from China—would be required to settle the question conclusively.
Newly released findings from the CIA in late January 2025 indicate the COVID‑19 pandemic “most likely” originated from a lab incident in Wuhan, China, though the assessment carries a “low confidence” rating. A December 2024 report from the Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee reaches similar conclusions, which is summarized below. The CIA’s conclusion was drawn from reanalysis of existing intelligence rather than new discoveries. Former CIA Director William Burns ordered the study under the Biden administration, and John Ratcliffe declassified it shortly after assuming the directorship.
During a White House Press Briefing on January 31, 2025, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt referenced these findings, saying there was “confirmable truth” about the lab leak hypothesis.
Leavitt also highlighted that President Trump had previously suggested a Wuhan lab origin for COVID‑19: “I would just like to point out that several years ago, when I was working in this press shop, and President Trump would take to this podium to brief the American people on COVID-19, he suggested that COVID very well may have come from a lab in Wuhan, China,” Leavitt said. Leavitt also referenced former President Trump’s earlier suggestions of a Wuhan lab origin, underscoring the long-standing debate surrounding the virus’s origins.
Both the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and the Chinese government have continued to deny any link between COVID and a lab incident. Shi Zhengli, a scientist at the WIV, has maintained that the outbreak “has nothing to do with the lab.”
John Ratcliffe, a Texan congressman who transitioned to the CIA, addressed the matter: “I had the opportunity on my first day to make public an assessment that actually took place in the Biden administration. So it can’t be accused of being political,” Ratcliffe told Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures,” according to the AP. Leavitt praised Ratcliffe for “revealing that truth.” The Energy Department also favors the lab leak theory.
Ratcliffe has long supported the lab-leak perspective, describing it as consistent with “science, intelligence, and common sense.” He noted that the Biden-era review was initiated before his leadership and made public later to reduce accusations of partisanship. CIA officials caution that “low confidence” indicates incomplete or uncertain evidence, a situation compounded by limited transparency from Chinese authorities.
This development has reignited debates in the scientific community and affected U.S.-China relations. A report declassified by the DNI on June 23, 2023, shows that while the Department of Energy and FBI lean toward a lab-related origin, other agencies still consider a natural spillover likely. The document also describes coronavirus research involving genetic engineering at the WIV and notes that some researchers became ill in fall 2019, though there is no definitive proof those illnesses were COVID‑related.
In March 2020, 16 virologists, biologists, and biosecurity specialists published a letter in The Lancet urging scrutiny of all possible origins and cautioning against dismissing alternative ideas as mere “misinformation or conjecture.” Since then, the lab leak hypothesis has continued to receive attention in policy and media circles.
According to an article in the Wall Street Journal article titled “CIA Now Favors Lab Leak Theory on Origins of Covid-19,” U.S. intelligence agencies have gradually shifted their assessments after years of debate. The article indicates that Ratcliffe disclosed an internal evaluation suggesting a lab-related incident in Wuhan, China, is a possible source of COVID‑19—although it remains under a low confidence rating, reflecting the lack of conclusive evidence.
Chinese authorities have maintained their stance against the lab leak hypothesis. A Nature study published in 2024 supported a zoonotic transmission theory based on genomic data, and some scientists believe this possibility cannot be ruled out without more comprehensive data.
Takeaways from the House report: “After Action Review of the COVID-19 Pandemic”
The 557-page Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee report argues that the COVID-19 pandemic likely originated from a research-related incident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), citing evidence such as the virus’s unique furin cleavage site, the lack of a confirmed intermediate animal host, and the WIV’s history of gain-of-function research.
1. Origins of the Virus: Lab leak vs. zoonotic transmission
- According to the report, SARS-CoV-2 “likely emerged because of a laboratory or research-related accident,” citing intelligence assessments (for example, from the Department of Energy and FBI) and scientific features such as the virus’s furin cleavage site.
- The report also alleges that certain early discussions in January–February 2020—particularly the drafting of the “Proximal Origin” paper—were prompted by high-level U.S. health officials with the aim of “disproving” the lab-leak theory.
- Numerous virologists and other experts—including those behind “Proximal Origin”—have consistently argued for a zoonotic origin, pointing out that past coronaviruses (SARS and MERS) have also crossed species boundaries. High-profile studies published in Science, PLOS and Nature Medicine (see above) have repeatedly emphasized a natural spillover scenario.
2. Gain-of-function research and EcoHealth Alliance
- The Subcommittee’s report claims that the U.S.-based nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance, under the leadership of Dr. Peter Daszak, “facilitated gain-of-function research” at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), using federal grant money. Daszak has refuted those allegations.
- The report alsocites EcoHealth’s Year 5 Research Performance Progress Report, which documents experiments creating chimeric coronaviruses in transgenic mice. The Subcommittee’s review concludes that these experiments meet the broader definition of “gain-of-function,” even if they do not necessarily rise to the narrower legal definitions of “enhanced potential pandemic pathogen” research (sometimes called “ePPP”) requiring special review under federal guidelines.
- In response, EcoHealth Alliance and some officials have disputed the Subcommittee’s interpretation, emphasizing that the published experiments did not meet the federal definition of gain-of-function research of concern at the time. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and EcoHealth have disagreed about whether certain late reports and communications breaches violated grant terms.
3. The “Proximal Origin” paper controversy
- The report devotes significant attention to “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,” a Nature Medicine paper arguing that the virus most likely arose naturally.
- According to the Subcommittee, internal emails and interviews indicate that some authors initially considered a laboratory origin but later shifted their stance—possibly, says the report, to align with officials such as Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Francis Collins.
- The authors of “Proximal Origin” maintain that their conclusions followed standard peer-review processes and reflected evolving scientific data (for instance, pangolin virus comparisons).
4. Late reporting and compliance questions
- The Subcommittee highlights that EcoHealth’s Year 5 progress report—which contained key experimental data—was submitted nearly two years late. EcoHealth President Dr. Daszak has stated that the organization attempted to submit on time but was allegedly “locked out” of NIH systems.
- An NIH forensic review could not verify EcoHealth’s lockout claims. NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research Dr. Michael Lauer testified that there was no help-desk record substantiating a technical barrier to timely submission.
- EcoHealth counters that the report’s data were partly visible in other renewal applications and that NIH’s systems can be cumbersome. Nonetheless, NIH has taken corrective actions, and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has suspended EcoHealth and proposed it for debarment, though final resolutions remain pending.
5. Competing scientific and policy perspectives
- Many scientists, including virologists who have studied previous outbreaks, continue to argue that strong genomic and epidemiological evidence supports a natural spillover, including a 2024 Cell paper that found that the “SARS-CoV-2 genetic diversity linked to the Huanan market is consistent with market emergence.”
- The Subcommittee’s Republican majority emphasizes that “the weight of evidence” points to a lab-related incident, but it also acknowledges multiple intelligence agencies’ mixed assessments—some leaning lab leak (with varying confidence levels) and others supporting a zoonotic spillover (also with low confidence).
Tell Us What You Think!
You must be logged in to post a comment.