Over the span of five days in 2021, the CIA abruptly changed its opinion on the origins of COVID-19 from a laboratory to neutral, a newly released document confirms.
The seal of the Central Intelligence Agency at the entrance of the agency headquarters in McLean, Va., on Sept. 24, 2022. Evelyn Hockstein/ReutersOriginally, CIA analysts concluded that COVID-19 likely came from a high-level laboratory in Wuhan, China located near where the first cases were detected in late 2019, senior CIA officer James Erdman III told lawmakers in May. Over the span of five days in 2021, however, Edman says the agency changed its stance to 'neutral.'
Then in September of 2024 during a private briefing between intelligence officials and members of Congress, Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) inquired as to how the agency came to the conclusion that lab-origin vs. natural origin were about equal, according to yesterday's document release by outgoing DNI Tulsi Gabbard.
In response, an unnamed CIA employee told Wenstrup that "he made the call to stop the shift to lab because [redacted] had come in the day before they were ready to publish which made them back off the call," according to a summary of the briefing compiled by an intelligence official.
As the Epoch Times notes further, officials said in a declassified assessment based on information through August 2021 that only one agency - which was not the CIA, based on details since made public - favored a lab origin for COVID-19.
An updated assessment released in mid-2023 states that the CIA was unable to determine the origin of COVID-19 because both the lab and natural origin theories “rely on significant assumptions or face challenges with conflicting reporting.”
The CIA said in 2025 that a lab origin for COVID-19 was “more likely.” The Trump administration maintains that COVID-19 came from the lab in China.
More on ChangesA whistleblower in 2023 told members of Congress that the CIA team tasked with analyzing the origins of COVID-19 favored a lab origin, but that after the team was paid, it changed its position.
The CIA at the time denied paying analysts to reach specific conclusions.
Erdman, the senior CIA official, told a Senate panel in May that he was on a team investigating how intelligence agencies handled the COVID-19 pandemic and that the CIA declined to provide documents the team had requested that may have shed light on the change.
Erdman said that the team found the shift happened after Dr. Anthony Fauci, at the time the head of the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases - which provided funding for the lab in Wuhan - briefed intelligence officials and suggested to officials that they talk to specific scientists, including researchers who wrote a paper with which Fauci and the institute’s head secretly assisted.
The paper, called “Proximal Origin,” purported to rule out a laboratory origin.
Wenstrup also asked intelligence officials in the 2024 briefing about a white paper that National Center for Medical Intelligence analysts compiled as a rebuttal to the “Proximal Origin.” The authors of the white paper felt their conclusions were ignored by intelligence officials, they informed Wenstrup.
A representative for the center was not prepared for the questioning, “which annoyed Wenstrup,” according to the briefing summary.
Fauci Briefed Intelligence OfficialsFauci briefed intelligence officials on June 4, 2021, and promoted the idea that COVID-19 had a natural origin, according to another briefing summary released by Gabbard.
Fauci “recommended that [intelligence officials] take a look at Tulane’s paper on two lineages from two separate markets,” the summary states. “To Dr. Fauci, this paper’s findings were a clear indication of natural origins of COVID-19.”
Fauci also “reminded the group that even for SARS, it took 12 years to make the link to a bat even though it only took 4 months to identify the natural reservoir” and that “we still haven’t identified source/origin of Ebola,” which is believed to have a natural origin, according to the summary.
Fauci, who has not responded to requests for comment, told lawmakers during a hearing in 2024 that he did not talk about viral research related to COVID-19 with intelligence officials.
“After the investigations began about COVID, I was briefed by intelligence agencies about possibilities of there being activities going on in different laboratories,” he said.
In another readout of the 2021 briefing, Fauci was said to have suggested intelligence officials connect with three scientists whose names were redacted.
“All three ... have advocated for features of the virus that they judge to be consistent with a natural origin,” the readout states.
An email disclosed that one of the scientists was Kristian Andersen, a Scripps Research researcher who coauthored the “Proximal Origin.”
Andersen said in private messages with coauthors that COVID-19 may have been engineered before the paper was published. He has said that further analysis of the virus altered his and others’ views.
“Dr. Fauci was the behind-the-scenes adviser who, alongside his hand-picked so-called experts, pushed the intelligence community to endorse a natural animal origin to hide his dangerous gain-of-function research that he funded using taxpayer dollars,” Gabbard said in a video statement posted to X on June 18.
“All of this in a deliberate attempt to cover up the truth and shift the blame and attention away from Fauci’s own actions.”
Tyler Durden Sat, 06/20/2026 - 14:35Authored by Jill McLaughlin via The Epoch Times,
Former California congressman Eric Swalwell was ordered by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) June 15 to return all donations received during his bid for governor before dropping out of the race.
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) during a news conference on the introduction of the Protection from Abusive Passengers Act at the U.S. Capitol Building, in Washington on April 6, 2022. Anna Moneymaker/Getty ImagesThe agency charged with enforcing federal campaign finance laws threatened Swalwell with an audit or enforcement action if he fails to give back $30,075 in contributions that 16 donors made to his campaign committee, according to a letter sent to the former candidate.
"Failure to comply with the provisions of the Act may also result in an enforcement action against the committee."
In the letter, FEC Senior Campaign Finance Analyst Mary Seiler also stated Swalwell would not be eligible to request a time extension to give the money back.
According to the letter, the FEC requires candidates to return contributions to the donors if they drop out of a race. Swalwell did return some of the donations, but not all of them, according to the agency.
General election contributions can't be used to pay off primary debts or other obligations, the FEC noted.
All refunds were required to be made by July 20. If not, the commission may take further legal action in the case, the FEC said.
Swalwell and his attorney, Sara Azari, didn't return requests for comment about the FEC's demands.
Swalwell dropped out of the governor's race in April after multiple women stepped forward with sexual assault allegations, which he has denied. He also faced a U.S. House of Representatives ethics investigation over the accusations and a call from his party to resign.
The former congressman and candidate continues to face criminal and ethical investigations over the allegations.
His official state campaign finance disclosure information shows Swalwell collected donations from individuals and organizations until the day he resigned April 13. The last-minute donors included the United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council Candidate PAC, California Dairies, real estate developer Jeff Worthe, and Greater Anesthesia Service and PAC - each of which gave him $39,200.
The last contribution made to Swalwell's campaign was nearly $460,000 on April 18 in "unitemized contributions," according to the state. The report doesn't specify who gave Swalwell the large donation or where it came from.
The California Secretary of State's office didn't immediately return a request for information about the contribution.
Swalwell's campaign finance report filed with the state shows he used campaign funds in the final weeks to pay his attorney Azari at least $313,000 and the Democratic political media firm KMM Strategies more than $600,000.
Filling Swalwell's SeatDemocratic state Sen. Aisha Wahab, a progressive from Hayward, California, advanced June 16 in a special general election to fill Swalwell's vacant U.S. House seat.
Swalwell resigned from Congress in April, a day after ending his campaign for governor.
Wahab will move on to the Aug. 18 runoff to determine who will fill the remainder of Swalwell's term through January.
Democrat Melissa Hernandez, a transit director and former mayor of Dublin, California, was in second place June 19 but votes were still being counted.
The district includes East Bay cities of Fremont, Hayward, and Livermore, which heavily favors Democrats.
A regular primary was held June 2 to elect a new Congress member for the district to a full term. Wahab and Hernandez were the top two vote-getters.
Tyler Durden Sat, 06/20/2026 - 14:00