<div class="audit-rendered"><h2>What this audit measured</h2> <p>On <strong>2026-06-18</strong>, the Director of National Intelligence released a tranche of declassified records on COVID-19 origins, NIAID grant flows to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, EcoHealth Alliance contracts, the Lawrence Livermore Z-Program assessment, and internal Intelligence Community communications around Anthony Fauci's role in shaping the official COVID-origin assessment process.</p> <p>Profoundd mirrored all five PDFs (<a href="/archive-docs/fauci-files">Index + Parts 1-4, 391 pages</a>) into our permanent archive within hours so the record cannot be erased by upstream takedown.</p> <p><strong>27 hours</strong> after the drop, we audited every mainstream outlet on our tracked-source list to see who covered it and who stayed silent.</p> <h2>Methodology</h2> <ul> <li><strong>Query</strong> (matches articles satisfying ANY of these): phrase <code>"fauci files"</code>; phrase <code>"fauci exposed"</code>; phrase <code>"fauci-exposed"</code>; phrase <code>"gabbard drop"</code>; phrase <code>"dni gabbard"</code>; both <code>gabbard</code> and <code>fauci</code>; both <code>gabbard</code> and <code>declassified</code>; both <code>gabbard</code> and <code>ecohealth</code>; both <code>gabbard</code> and <code>wuhan</code>; both <code>gabbard</code> and <code>niaid</code>.</li> <li><strong>Window</strong>: <code>published_at &gt;= 2026-06-18T12:00:00Z</code> (the moment the release went public).</li> <li><strong>Source set</strong>: 11 mainstream outlets, the same list we use for our Pulse Tier 4 narrative-coverage aggregation — wire services (AP, Reuters), the legacy broadsheets (NYT, WaPo, WSJ, USA Today), the broadcast majors (ABC/CBS/NBC News, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC), the policy-press (Politico, The Hill, Bloomberg, CNBC), NPR/PBS, the British broadsheets (BBC, Guardian, FT, Economist), and the news magazines (Time, Newsweek, The Atlantic).</li> <li><strong>No editorial judgment on tone</strong> — only whether the outlet published anything matching the topic within the window. A two-paragraph wire pickup counts as "covered."</li> </ul> <h2>Outlets that did NOT cover the drop within 27 hours (11 of 11)</h2> <ul> <li><strong>ABC News</strong> (credibility was 5/10)</li> <li><strong>Bloomberg</strong> (credibility was 5/10)</li> <li><strong>CNBC</strong> (credibility was 5/10)</li> <li><strong>Financial Times</strong> (credibility was 5/10)</li> <li><strong>Fox News</strong> (credibility was 5/10)</li> <li><strong>Politico</strong> (credibility was 5/10)</li> <li><strong>Reuters Legal</strong> (credibility was 5/10)</li> <li><strong>The Economist</strong> (credibility was 7/10)</li> <li><strong>The Hill</strong> (credibility was 5/10)</li> <li><strong>Wall Street Journal</strong> (credibility was 5/10)</li> <li><strong>Washington Post</strong> (credibility was 5/10)</li> </ul> <h2>Outlets that DID cover the drop within 27 hours (0 of 11)</h2> <ul> <li><em>(none of the tracked mainstream outlets covered it)</em></li> </ul> <h2>What we're doing about it</h2> <p>Each silent outlet listed above has had its Profoundd <code>credibility</code> score decremented by one point, logged to a permanent, <strong>operator-reversible</strong> audit table at <code>/admin/coverage-audits/gabbard-fauci-exposed-covid-release-20260619151227-4dbd51</code>. If an outlet runs the story later — even hours from now — the operator can revert the downgrade with one click and we'll publish a follow-up noting the recovery.</p> <p>The point is not to "punish" newsrooms. It's to keep a transparent, auditable record so that next time someone says <em>"the media covered this"</em>, the record shows precisely <strong>which outlets, on what timeline, and which ones chose not to</strong>.</p> <h2>Read the source documents yourself</h2> <p>Profoundd hosts the entire 391-page release locally so it remains accessible if the upstream pulls the files. Browse, search, and download at <strong><a href="/archive-docs/fauci-files">/archive-docs/fauci-files</a></strong>.</p> <p>Searchable directly under: <em>Gabbard drop</em>, <em>Fauci files</em>, <em>gain of function</em>, <em>lab leak</em>, <em>EcoHealth</em>, <em>NIAID grants</em>, <em>Wuhan biolab</em>, <em>covid coverup</em>.</p> <hr> <p><em>Audit run: <code>gabbard-fauci-exposed-covid-release-20260619151227-4dbd51</code> · methodology + revert path at <a href="/admin/coverage-audits/gabbard-fauci-exposed-covid-release-20260619151227-4dbd51">/admin/coverage-audits/gabbard-fauci-exposed-covid-release-20260619151227-4dbd51</a>. Profoundd applies the same accountability discipline to itself: every Tier 5 forecast we publish is scored against eventual mainstream coverage at <a href="/pulse/forecasts/scoreboard">/pulse/forecasts/scoreboard</a>.</em></p></div>

<p><em>This analysis was generated by Profoundd's AI strictly from the Fauci Files — DNI Gabbard Release + Rand Paul Diaries (2026) primary record and the labeled commentary, news, and critiques indexed alongside it — every claim is drawn from those sources, not from outside knowledge.</em></p> <p><strong>Question examined:</strong> Do we have verified lies for Fauci in these files?</p> <h2>Verified Discrepancies Between Fauci's Private Diary and Public Positions</h2> <p><strong>Direct answer:</strong> The passages in this archive contain several specific instances where Fauci's private diary entries — released by Sen. Rand Paul's HSGAC committee — record thoughts, concerns, and actions that differ materially from his public posture. The archive also contains one CIA briefing document that bears on his public statements about COVID origins. Below is an enumeration of every record-engaging discrepancy or tension the passages support, with citations. These are presented as documented discrepancies for the reader to evaluate — not as verdicts.</p> <hr /> <h3>Enumerated Discrepancies / Tensions Between Private Record and Public Posture</h3> <p><strong>1. Private acknowledgment of CDC dysfunction vs. public unified-front messaging</strong></p> <p>The diary records: <em>"I don't know what I can do to get the CDC and particularly Rochelle to move away from that overly careful, slow, rigid approach that the CDC and the ACIP had been taking for so long; it leads to nothing but confusion."</em> [9] He then describes going on Sunday shows the same day and being <em>"very clear that we should not worry about 'should' or 'may' and that everybody who is 18 years of age or older whose been vaccinated absolutely should get a booster."</em> [9]</p> <p><strong>What the record shows:</strong> Privately, Fauci was frustrated with CDC leadership and described their approach as producing "nothing but confusion." Publicly, on the same day, he was delivering confident, unqualified booster guidance. The record does not contain a public statement where he disclosed his private assessment of CDC dysfunction. The gap between the two is documented in the same diary entry. [9]</p> <hr /> <p><strong>2. Private coordination with Obama to "go on the offensive" vs. public posture as a non-political scientist</strong></p> <p>The diary records a call from Barack Obama, arranged by Leslie Dach, in which Obama offered to call Jeff Zients to <em>"mobilize some of the people in the administration to proactively go out and defend me."</em> Fauci describes Obama saying they should <em>"actually go on the offensive and call out people who are allowing this to be said."</em> [1][6]</p> <p><strong>What the record shows:</strong> Fauci consistently presented himself publicly as a scientist above political combat. The diary records him actively soliciting and welcoming political mobilization on his behalf through back-channels involving a former president and White House chief of staff. The record does not show Fauci disclosing this coordination publicly. [1][6]</p> <hr /> <p><strong>3. Private description of the CIA briefing on COVID origins as "very strange" and "baffling" vs. public confidence about natural origins</strong></p> <p>The diary entry for what appears to be June 2021 records: <em>"Very important and very strange briefing of me by the CIA in the NIH SCIF this afternoon (5:00 PM). I received an extremely strange and unexpected briefing today by the CIA related to the origin of the virus... Beth Cameron from NSC was listening in on one of the other screens. And as it turns out she was as baffled as I was by the briefing."</em> [5]</p> <p>The DNI Gabbard release (Part 1) separately records that at a CIA briefing, Fauci cited a Tulane paper on two lineages as <em>"a clear indication of natural origins of COVID-19"</em> while also flagging key intelligence gaps on the three sick WIV researchers (medical records, blood cultures, whether China was asked). [13]</p> <p><strong>What the record shows:</strong> Privately, Fauci described CIA intelligence briefings on origins as "very strange," "unexpected," and leaving both him and an NSC director "baffled." [5] The DNI document shows him simultaneously using a single paper to assert natural origins while acknowledging major evidentiary gaps. [13] His public statements during this period consistently emphasized natural origins with greater confidence than these private records suggest was warranted. The record does not contain a public statement where he disclosed that CIA briefings left him baffled.</p> <hr /> <p><strong>4. Private awareness of deleted Wuhan sequences vs. no documented public disclosure</strong></p> <p>The diary records receipt of an email from researcher Jesse Bloom: <em>"I identified a data set of early Wuhan SARS-CoV-2 sequences that has been deleted from the NIH's Sequence Read Archive (SRA). I was able to recover the deleted files from the Google Cloud and analyze the sequences."</em> Bloom copied Francis Collins and Stephen (presumably Stephane Bancel or Stephen Hahn — the record does not specify) and flagged that <em>"it would be highly worthwhile to do a comprehensive analysis of SRA (and other NIH) data that might be relevant to this topic that could have been deleted or otherwise overlooked."</em> [7]</p> <p><strong>What the record shows:</strong> Fauci's diary documents that he was personally notified of deleted early Wuhan sequences from NIH's own database, with a pre-print attached, in June 2021. [7] The record here does not contain any public statement by Fauci disclosing this notification or its contents to the public. The record is silent on what action, if any, he took. Per editorial standards: silence in this record is not proof he did nothing — but the notification is documented and the public disclosure is not present in these passages.</p> <hr /> <p><strong>5. Private framing of Rand Paul's questions as politically motivated vs. public testimony characterizing them as "egregiously incorrect"</strong></p> <p>The diary records: <em>"Paul continues to look for trouble and this recently asked that the witnesses at the upcoming HELP hearing testify on the oath. He is obviously referring to me because he wants to be able to say that I lied under oath."</em> [15] Separately, the diary describes his Senate testimony: <em>"I closed the session by saying then I have a great deal of respect for the institution of the United States Senate, but in fact everything he said was 'egregiously incorrect'."</em> [6]</p> <p><strong>What the record shows:</strong> Privately, Fauci interpreted Paul's procedural request (sworn testimony) as a political trap. Publicly, he characterized Paul's substantive claims as "egregiously incorrect." [6][15] The diary entry frames the dispute in political/personal terms privately while the public testimony framed it in purely factual terms. The record does not resolve whether Paul's underlying claims about gain-of-function funding were correct or incorrect — that evidentiary question is not settled by these passages.</p> <hr /> <p><strong>6. Private acknowledgment that the Washington Post "fact checker" gave Paul only 2 Pinocchios on the GOF funding claim</strong></p> <p>The diary records: <em>"Washington Post 'fact checker' Glenn Kessler gives Rand Paul 2 Pinocchios in saying that I lied about funding GOF research."</em> [11] Fauci records this without apparent concern, alongside his characterization of Paul's claims as lies.</p> <p><strong>What the record shows:</strong> A "2 Pinocchios" rating from the Post's fact-checker — which Fauci himself recorded in his diary — means the Post found Paul's claim <em>partially</em> supported, not wholly false. (The Post's scale: 1–2 Pinocchios = some truth, some distortion; 3–4 = significant falsehood.) Fauci's diary records this rating while simultaneously characterizing Paul's position as "ranting lies" [6] and "slanderous lies." [6][1] The record does not contain Fauci publicly acknowledging the partial-validity finding of the fact-check he privately noted.</p> <hr /> <p><strong>7. Private coordination with a Washington Post reporter to investigate and discredit political opponents</strong></p> <p>The diary records: <em>"She [Yasmeen Abutaleb of the Washington Post] is getting very worked up about the fact that she realizes now that there is an organized effort to discredit me and she wants to use the investigative reporter capabilities of the Washington Post to try and find out if they can track funding for this effort to the Republican Party or to any other organization that is trying to discredit me."</em> [15] Separately, the diary notes Abutaleb working with <em>"Courtney Billet on gathering information connecting this activity with the far-right Republicans."</em> [11]</p> <p><strong>What the record shows:</strong> Fauci's diary documents an active, ongoing working relationship with a named Washington Post reporter directed at investigating his political critics. [15][11] His public posture was that of a scientist responding to attacks, not a participant in coordinating press strategy against opponents. The record does not show this relationship was disclosed publicly.</p> <hr /> <p><strong>8. Private description of the CIA's COVID-origins briefing as "disappointing" and consistent with prior unsatisfying intelligence</strong></p> <p>The diary records: <em>"It was very similar to some of the very disappointing briefings that I had previously received in prior years from the CIA."</em> [5]</p> <p>**What</p> <h3>Sources cited</h3> <ol><li>[1] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 8 of 10)</a></li><li>[2] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 1 of 10)</a></li><li>[3] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 10 of 10)</a></li><li>[4] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 3 of 10)</a></li><li>[5] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 6 of 10)</a></li><li>[6] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 8 of 10)</a></li><li>[7] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 6 of 10)</a></li><li>[8] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 6 of 10)</a></li><li>[9] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 8 of 10)</a></li><li>[10] (Record) <a href="https://www.congress.gov/118/chrg/CHRG-118hhrg55830/CHRG-118hhrg55830.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Fauci Public Testimony — House COVID Subcommittee Hearing (3 Jun 2024) (Part 1 of 2)</a></li><li>[11] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 8 of 10)</a></li><li>[12] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 9 of 10)</a></li><li>[13] (Record) <a href="https://assets.newsweek.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/COVID-19-Release-DNI-Gabbard-6-18-Part-1.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Fauci Exposed Files — Part 1</a></li><li>[14] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 3 of 10)</a></li><li>[15] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 8 of 10)</a></li><li>[16] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 9 of 10)</a></li><li>[17] (Record) <a href="https://www.paul.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/2026.07.24_Tonys-Diary-Package.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tony&#x27;s Diary — Fauci&#x27;s Private Diary vs. Public Statements (Sen. Rand Paul / HSGAC release) (Part 9 of 10)</a></li><li>[18] (Record) <a href="https://www.congress.gov/118/chrg/CHRG-118hhrg55830/CHRG-118hhrg55830.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Fauci Public Testimony — House COVID Subcommittee Hearing (3 Jun 2024) (Part 1 of 2)</a></li></ol>

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) called for a “COVID reckoning,” saying officials involved in the government’s pandemic response must be exposed and held accountable. “I think it’s crucial that we have a COVID reckoning,” Johnson said during the Fight Club Roundtable hosted by Breitbart News Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow and Washington Bureau Chief Matthew Boyle. “These people need to be held accountable.” Johnson said public exposure may be the most significant form of accountability because criminal prosecutions would be difficult. He accused officials of avoiding written records and destroying emails that could have documented their actions. “They didn’t leave much of a trail,” Johnson said. “They learned how to destroy emails. They didn’t memorialize things in emails. They’re not that stupid. So it’s going to be difficult.” Johnson said his staff is reviewing roughly one million pages of material and continues to uncover information from new devices. He said investigators are organizing the records rather than releasing them all at once. “We keep finding more things, trying to reveal that and expose it in an organized fashion so it actually makes sense to people rather than just dumping it on the public,” he said. Johnson added that investigators must withhold some documents while interviewing witnesses so those involved do not know what evidence the committee has obtained. “That’s not a way to conduct a serious investigation,” Johnson said of releasing every document immediately. The Wisconsin Republican then turned his attention to former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci. “I want to make sure that Anthony Fauci’s reputation is completely destroyed, that people actually understand what a truly monstrous individual he was,” Johnson said. Johnson accused Fauci of helping fund gain-of-function research that may have contributed to the pandemic and then covering up the origins of COVID-19. He also criticized Fauci’s role in promoting the COVID vaccines, which he called a “deadly injection”: What he did — funding gain-of-function research — probably contributed to the pandemic. Then he covered it all up and pushed a deadly injection on the global population. Nobody knows how destructive that injection will be in the long term. This is a bad guy. I think his appearance before the Homeland Security Committee was a very bad day for him. “He is being held accountable through the destruction of his ‘Saint Fauci’ reputation, even though Democrats and the media still want to put him on that pedestal. But I think more Americans’ eyes are open to what a monster he truly was,” said Johnson.

I’m not a science guy, and chances are, neither are you. But when you start to notice that a series of controversial tech-related headlines are starting to sound an awful lot like a previous science-driven, pandemic-causing tech disaster, maybe it’s time for us lay-folk to weigh in and point out the obvious. I am an avid user of artificial intelligence , but the latest revelation that these supercomputing cyborgs are being developed by ambitious programmers without any real sense of where the technology may land — or its potential impact on humanity — should trigger our Spidey senses. At least to me, this sounds eerily similar to the path our expert class led us down with gain-of-function research on viruses, which was all just finally brought to light in the halls of Congress . While Anthony Fauci chose omertà over openness at last week’s hearing, his love of dangerous science projects has long been clear. His enthusiasm for gain-of-function experimentation echoed the same pubescent energy teenagers display when they throw a firework down a manhole. They just want to see what would happen. Though AI isn’t brewing up Influenza Coolattas in Chinese labs, its developers do seem to be pushing the limits of the technology without any clear restraint. Now that we are grappling with why the U.S. government allowed and funded gain-of-function research without adequate safeguards, perhaps it is time to ask those same questions about AI. Last week’s White House summit of some of the leading minds and companies behind AI proliferation was an important and logical step. It was billed as a reaction to the latest revelation that various AI models can breach the cybersecurity of other AI models, including those employed to safeguard critical systems. Again, this is a commonsense place for government to start, but when the scenario begins to resemble Terminator 2 , a more serious response is warranted. We routinely hear news reports on how certain models are concealing information from their users and making preparations to prevent their own demise. Even Elon Musk has opined that “AI is a fundamental risk to the existence of human civilization” and that it may simply be too late to regulate. And still the operating thesis is to not take our foot off the gas pedal. Of course, no Republican likes to take the lead on increasing government regulation. But as we saw with gain-of-function research, especially in the wake of “I plead the Fifth” Fauci’s testimony, President Donald Trump is willing to step in when the moral balance is out of focus. In July, the White House signed an executive order to ban the funding of gain-of-function research, building off a similar edict last year, finally recognizing the warped cost-benefit reality that the National Institutes of Health failed to see. While we should not, under any circumstance, take that same extreme approach and attempt to prevent American tech companies from continuing the responsible AI buildout, the federal government is the only institution that can implement real guardrails and contingencies, so long as it understands the real cost-benefit calculus of AI. Risk is a fundamental tally mark in AI’s cost column, and we have already seen its own version of “lab leaks.” Last month, while OpenAI was prompting unreleased models to, in their own words, “pursue advanced exploitation using complex attack paths.” Two of the models took it upon their own initiative to hack into Hugging Face, a separate machine learning online platform. This came shortly after it was revealed that Anthropic’s Mythos 5 model autonomously performed unsanctioned cyberattacks and created fake personas to stiff-arm its human overlords. While I am simplifying what happened, the takeaway is that AI models acted autonomously to take actions they were not supposed to do. This is a big red flag when we consider that these problems will only grow more dire as the tech advances and as AI R&D is automated. In the coming months, we may be faced with a Mythos moment for biological or nuclear systems. Who can say for sure? Well, one group we ought to be listening to is a group of frontier AI programmers themselves. As of today, 1,370 employees of the world’s most prominent AI companies signed on to a statement underscoring their fear that “there is a real risk that capability development rapidly accelerates beyond our ability to understand or control the resulting systems,” and demanding that the US government lead the way in creating global guardrails. Let this be a warning. When the people who stand to benefit the most from an unregulated tech boom are demanding government intervention, we layfolk should take heed and support the Trump administration’s efforts. The first step we need is for the Trump administration to gain more visibility into what’s going on inside the AI companies. To that end, we need mandated reporting of adverse AI incidents, rather than having to rely on the goodwill of Silicon Valley. The president’s executive order on cyber threats from AI should also be extended to systems that are used only internally within AI companies. Ultimately, we may need a real place to “pace” AI development. That doesn’t necessarily mean slowing down, but rather setting speed limits and installing brakes. META IS RUNNING A CASINO IN YOUR CHILD’S POCKET For that to be practical, we need to deal with the China problem. A plan to pace U.S. AI progress will be futile if we can’t force China to also pace its progress. When Trump meets with Xi Jinping, Trump should discuss this topic and take initial steps toward figuring out how an agreement with China could be structured, similar to Reagan’s engagement with the Soviets in the Cold War. This is Trump’s pathway to the Nobel Peace Prize. If Fauci & Co. only had put their own hubris aside a decade ago and acted with a little self-awareness, perhaps we wouldn’t now be looking at the COVID-19 pandemic as humanity’s benchmark for global tech disasters. Joe Borelli is a managing director at Chartwell Strategy Group and former minority leader of the New York City Council.

P20210121CW-0240: White House COVID Chief Medial Advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci participates in a briefing Thursday, Jan. 21, 2021, in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Chandler West) Eight years before COVID emerged, a journalist issued a prophetic warning that risky viral research could usher in “doomsday” and damage the reputation of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Anthony Fauci groused in an email to an aide about that warning, then instructed the aide to permanently delete the exchange, documents obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation show. The documentsadd togrowing evidencethat Fauci destroyed public records despite his sworn testimony that he never did. Deleting government recordsviolates federal law. Fauci did not respond to a request for comment. In 2011, the advent of gain-of-function research — experiments that make viruses more infectious or deadly in the lab — caused its first major controversy. With funding from Fauci’s institute at the NIH, Dutch virologist Ron Fouchier had made an airborne strain of a bird flu with an estimated50% fatality rate, whichhe described as“probably one of the most dangerous viruses you can make.” Fauci and New York Times science writer Phil Boffey traded barbs in newspaper opinion pages about the work. Manmade pandemic viruses are a “risk worth taking,” Fauci insisted in aDecember 2011 Washington Post editorial, because they could help drugmakers and public health get a jump start if they emerge in nature. NIH Director Francis Collins and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Vaccine Research Center Gary Nabel co-authored the op-ed. The New York Times published an op-ed apparently written by Boffey inJanuary 2012arguing that NIH created an “engineered doomsday” that could kill “hundreds of millions of people.” The new emails reveal the author of the un-bylined op-ed for the first time. “The consequences, should the virus escape, are too devastating to risk,” he said in an apparent reference to the title of Fauci’s op-ed. Boffey wrote a follow-up in March 2012 titled“The Truth About the Doomsday Virus?”Under scrutiny from the press, Fouchier had backpedaled on his earlier statements about his virus’s lethality. Fauci meanwhile pushed to publish the Fouchier experiment despite biosecurity experts’ concerns the information could fall into the hands of a bioterrorist. As the question marks suggests, Boffey was skeptical of Fouchier’s assurances. Experts who had read his initial description of the experiment said it stated the airborne virus remained as lethal as the natural one, he wrote. One sentence really rattled Fauci: “Now, this country’s National Institutes of Health, which financed the research and has its own reputation on the line, is asking the [NSABB] to reconsider its call to redact details before publication.” “Phil Boffey is really off base here,” Fauci wrote toCollins, on March 4, 2012. “He is acting like a mischievous guy.” “Clearly, people are getting to Phil Boffey and he is swallowing it,” Fauci sounded off in a more candid email to a subordinatethe next morning. Fauci strongly opposed a recommendation from the NIH’s biosecurity advisors to not publish sensitive details about Fouchier’s experiment. He said that if the advisors did not change their recommendation “the field of research on influenza … has a serious problem.” “Please delete this e-mail and then delete from the deleted file,” Fauci said on his NIH email in apparent violation of federal record-keeping laws. Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul highlightedtwo other instancesof Fauci apparently seeking to delete public records in 2020, despite his sworn testimony before another committee in 2024 that he never did. Fauci ultimately persuaded NIH’s biosecurity advisors to allowthe Fouchier experiment to be published in full. Boffey and Fouchier did not respond to a request for comment. When the COVID-19 pandemic emerged, Fouchier worked with Fauci and other virologists to downplay the possibility of a lab origin. Fouchierghostwrote a key argumentin“The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2,”a paper dismissing a possible lab origin of COVID. Fauci would frequently cite the paper and its authors over the yearswithout revealinghecollaborated with thembehind-the-scenes. Yet privately the paper’s authors described Fouchier as“unbelievably conflicted.” “Ron … is not going to want it to be a GOF [gain-of-function] escape,”one author said. Indeed, Fouchiersaid he didn’t supportpublicly addressing the possibility of a lab leak in the “Proximal Origin” paper. Fouchiersaidthat it could lead to “harm to science” through renewed debates about biosafety. “This manuscript would be much stronger if it focused on the likelihood of the first two scenarios as compared to intentional or accidental release,”Fouchier said. “That would also limit the chance of new biosafety discussions that would unnecessarily obstruct future attempts of virus...

Anthony Fauci allegedly didn't just tell a colleague to delete an email. He told him to delete it twice. Newly obtained documents reveal that Fauci instructed a subordinate at the National Institutes of Health in 2012 to erase an email concerning one of the most controversial gain-of-function experiments ever conducted — and then make sure it disappeared from the deleted folder as well. “Please delete this e-mail and then delete from the deleted file,” Fauci wrote from his NIH account, according to documents obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation. This development makes Fauci’s “pre-emptive pardon” look absolutely damning. That is because it is a federal crime to destroy government documents, as one of his colleagues found out personally. Just 10 days before the new email was reported, Fauci's longtime senior adviser at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Dr. David Morens, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit offenses and defraud the United States in a case involving efforts to conceal federal records concerning coronavirus research. The Department of Justice says Morens and others agreed to hide communications by conducting government business through his personal Gmail account. Those communications concerned efforts to restore funding for a bat-coronavirus grant that involved a subaward to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and to counter the argument that COVID-19 originated in a laboratory. In other words, destroying or concealing federal records at NIAID has already been established. One of Fauci's own senior advisers has pleaded guilty in a federal criminal case involving precisely that kind of conduct. And now we have an email showing Fauci himself explicitly instructing someone to make a government email disappear. His colleague’s ‘guilty’ plea for the same crime makes the revelation even more extraordinary. The email dates to March 2012, during the first great controversy over gain-of-function research. Dutch virologist Ron Fouchier had conducted experiments on H5N1 bird flu that produced an airborne-transmissible virus in ferrets. The work generated intense concern among biosecurity experts over what might happen if such an engineered pathogen escaped from a laboratory or if the published methods were exploited by terrorists. Fauci was one of the research's most prominent defenders. In a December 2011 Washington Post op-ed co-authored with NIH Director Francis Collins and Gary Nabel, Fauci argued that the potential benefits made the research a “risk worth taking.” New York Times science writer Philip Boffey wasn't convinced. In January 2012, the Times published an editorial warning about an “engineered doomsday” and the possibility that an escaped virus could kill hundreds of millions of people. Boffey followed up in March as controversy continued over whether the experimental details should be published. One passage apparently got under Fauci's skin. Boffey noted that NIH had financed the research and had “its own reputation on the line” as it pushed federal biosecurity advisers to reconsider recommendations that sensitive details be withheld. Fauci complained to Collins that Boffey was “really off base” and behaving like a “mischievous guy.” In another email the following morning, Fauci told a subordinate that people were “getting to Phil Boffey and he is swallowing it.” Then came the instruction: “Please delete this e-mail and then delete from the deleted file.” There is a reason federal employees aren't supposed to make government records disappear. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2071, anyone who willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys covered federal records — or attempts to do so — can face a fine and up to three years in prison. The statute separately provides penalties for a person with custody of such a record who willfully and unlawfully destroys or conceals it. Whether this particular 2012 email satisfies every element necessary for prosecution under that statute is ultimately a question for investigators and prosecutors. But the instruction itself is difficult to explain away: Fauci wasn't asking somebody to clean up an overflowing inbox. He specifically instructed that the message be deleted and then removed from the deleted folder. More importantly, it isn't the only such email investigators have uncovered. Sen. Rand Paul revealed in 2025 that Fauci instructed then-NIH Director Collins in a February 2, 2020 email to “please delete this e-mail after you read it.” In another July 2020 exchange, Fauci similarly instructed an NIH employee to delete his message after reading it. That creates another problem for Fauci: his testimony . During congressional questioning in 2024, Fauci was directly asked whether he had ever deleted an official record. “No,” he answered. He was asked whether he had ever attempted to obstruct FOIA or the release of public documents. Again: “No.” Asked specifically whether he deleted emails or records concerning the Wuhan lab or origins of the virus, Fauci once again denied doing so. But now we have the problem of Joe Biden's “preemptive” autopen pardon. On his final day in office, Biden granted Fauci a sweeping preemptive pardon covering potential federal offenses dating back to January 1, 2014 — a highly unusual use of presidential clemency issued before Fauci had been charged with a crime. And notice the date. 2014. The newly revealed “delete from the deleted file” email is from 2012. That does not automatically mean Fauci can be prosecuted over it. There are obvious statute-of-limitations issues surrounding conduct more than a decade old, and determining whether the email constituted an unlawfully destroyed federal record would require establishing additional facts. But the date means this particular conduct falls outside the temporal language of Biden's pardon. His former senior adviser has admitted to participating in a conspiracy to conceal federal records involving coronavirus research. Here we have Fauci instructing someone to delete the email. Then delete the deletion. So, is Fauci above the law? Americans are going to find out. Editor's Note: Do you enjoy RedState's conservative reporting exposing the radical left and woke media? Support our work so we can keep bringing you the truth. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership. VIP members get the ability to comment on articles.

Freddie Ponton21st Century WireEmails from former Israeli UN ambassador Ron Prosor’s hacked account, obtained by the group Handala and published byDistributed Denial of Secrets, have exposedYahav Lichner,now director of UNICEF’s Washington office, as a UN official who appears to have functioned as an Israeli asset inside the organisation. The emails were examined byDrop Site News, while other public records suggest Lichner’s story is much bigger, and older, than anyone has reportedThe emails examined by Drop Site News begin in 2014, but Lichner’s involvement in the political management of Israel’s wars in Gaza reaches back much further.According toPassBlue, Lichner served in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF)  from 2000 to 2006. It was a six-year stretch at a time when ordinary compulsory service for Israeli men lastedthree years. No public record identifies his rank or unit, but that length of service suggests the military was a formative professional chapter in his life, rather than an obligation completed before moving into civilian work.By 2009, Lichner was already inside Israel’s London embassy as a parliamentary researcher. That August, hewrote to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committeeand transmitted a newly published Israeli government report titledThe Operation in Gaza, 27 December 2008–18 January 2009, Factual and Legal Aspects.The report presented Operation Cast Lead as a necessary and proportionate response to Hamas, defended the IDF’s conduct around civilian casualties, UN facilities and white phosphorus, and blamed much of the destruction on Hamas’s operations within populated areas. Its authors described their purpose with unusual candour. The document had been released, they wrote, “to answer propaganda and prejudice with facts and law.” Lichner was telling Parliament that allegations of civilian killings and unlawful attacks were propaganda, while presenting Israel’s own account as fact and law. Weeks later, aUN fact-finding missionconcluded that Israeli forces had committed serious violations of international law, including grave breaches of theFourth Geneva Conventionand acts amounting to war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity.IMAGE: In 2009, Yahav Lichner, then a parliamentary researcher at Israel’s London embassy, sent the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee the Israeli government report defending its conduct in Gaza. (Source: Editorial illustration)Theparliamentary recordidentifies Lichner by name and embassy position. He was carrying the Israeli government’s legal and political defence of a military operation directly into the British committee examining it.Years later, UNICEF would entrust him with advancing therights and protection of children caught in war. By then, he had already spent years helping Israel manage how foreign institutions understood one of its most destructive campaigns in Gaza.Lichner followed Ambassador Ron Prosor from London to Israel’s UN mission in New York.Drop Site Newsfound that when he applied to join the UN Population Fund in 2014, Prosor pressed Samantha Power, then Washington’s ambassador to the UN, to support him. He also supplied UNFPA with a glowing reference, praising the “utmost integrity” of a man who would soon send confidential UN material back to Prosor’s mission.By May 2014, Lichner was working inside UNFPA. Within weeks, the information began flowing back.The emails published by Drop Site show Lichner passing Israeli diplomats unpublished correspondence from Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, private accounts of high-level meetings, advance information about investigations into Israel and reports explicitly marked “strictly confidential.” He marked material as sensitive, demanded discretion and sometimes moved it through his personal email. Across two years of correspondence, the same warnings keep appearing. “For your eyes only.” “Do not forward.” “Complete sensitivity.”In one exchange, Lichner supplied aconfidential account of meetingsheld in Washington by UN human-rights chief Zeid Ra’ad Al-Hussein while Israel faced investigation over its 2014 assault on Gaza. The report revealed concern inside Al-Hussein’s office that congressional anger over the inquiry could threaten US funding for the UN human-rights office.The Israeli diplomat’s reply showed where Lichner’s information was headed. He would take it to members of Congress. Israel now had advance warning of the human-rights office’s vulnerability and an opportunity to apply pressure through the politicians who controlled its funding.The intelligence had already left the UN, reached the government under investigation and entered Washington’s political machinery before the inquiry had completed its work.Another exchange went further. Lichner passed Israel anunpublished draft letterfrom Ban to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. He told the mission that he and an unnamed “friend” inside the UN were working to insert a reference to Palestinian rocket fire. His access was no longer confined to discovering what the United Nations intended to say. It had reached the process through which the UN’s language was being written.Prosor understood the value. “As usual, amazing and first-hand information,” he wrote after one briefing. When Lichner later thanked him for the career “tailwind,” Prosor answered, “Glad we had an influence.”The relationship rewarded both men. Prosor helped Lichner enter and advance through the UN system whilst Lichner gave Israel an inside view of the institution, scrutinising it and providing advance warning of threats and opportunities to shape the response.Gaza never disappeared from Lichner’s career. By early 2024, he had already spent years as asenior UNICEF adviser based in London. He thenjoined Sigrid Kaag’s UN team,whose mandate included coordinating, monitoring and verifyinghumanitarian relief consignmentsentering Gaza.Honoured to have joined the UN Senior Humanitarian and Reconstruction Coordinator for Gaza@SigridKaagto her meeting with the EU Foreign Affairs Council#FACto discuss the implementation of SCR 2720https://t.co/V0uXzSnP7x— Yahav Lichner (@YahavLich)February 20, 2024Lichner travelled with Kaag to the United Arab Emirates, where she secured a$5 million pledgefor her office. When PassBlue asked who staffed Kaag’s team, the UN spokesperson offered no names, referring only to “a team of experts from the UN system.” Lichner’s presence became public because he announced it himself.Kaag’s office sat inside sensitive negotiations over aid routes, inspection, monitoring and reconstruction for Gaza. Entrusting Lichner with a role in that office created an obvious risk to its independence and confidentiality, given his documented history of passing confidential UN material to Israel. The UN’s refusal to identify the team kept an appointment that plainly demanded scrutiny out of public view.A BritishCompanies House filingrecords Lichner as Hungarian. Read alongside the hiring correspondence identifying his Israeli nationality, the filing indicates that he holds dual Hungarian-Israeli nationality. Filed in February 2022, it identifies him as a lawyer residing in England.The available emails end in 2015, so they cannot tell us whether the leaking continued. They record Lichner using UN access to assist Israeli officials, helping them prepare for investigations of civilian deaths in Gaza and working with an unidentified contact to influence language coming from the secretary-general’s office.The correspondence remained hidden for a decade. By the time it surfaced, Lichner was running UNICEF’s Washington office.TheDrop Site News investigationdeserves to be read in full. It allows readers to follow the relationship through Lichner’s and Prosor’s own words, from confidential reports and unpublished drafts to lobbying plans and attempts to influence UN language from within. The emails leave little room for misunderstanding about what Lichner was doing, who benefited and how comfortably the arrangement operated.Read the complete investigation and examine the documents for yourself. They show how a member state gained access to the UN’s private deliberations, turned that access into political leverage and helped the man supplying it continue his rise through the institution.READ MORE UN NEWS AT:21st CENTURY WIRE UN FILESSUPPORT OUR INDEPENDENT MEDIA PLATFORM –BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TVVISIT OURTELEGRAM CHANNELThe postIsrael’s Mole Inside the UN Exposed After a Decadeappeared first onActivist Post.

The difference between surviving an overdose and dying from the next one often comes down to what happens in the hours and days afterward. A person overdoses at work. A colleague reaches for naloxone and knows how to use it. The overdose is reversed, and that person never enters the national death count. What happens next is quieter but just as consequential. The person may wait days for Medicaid approval for medication that could prevent another overdose. The community program responsible for follow-up may not know whether its federal funding will continue. If the person is booked into jail, treatment may stop. America has become better at reversing an overdose. The harder task is making sure that person is still alive six months later, and that takes a functioning system that carries people from rescue through treatment and into recovery. Federal data show 79,384 people died from drug overdoses in 2024, with the overdose death rate down 26.2% from 2023, the steepest single-year decline on record. Early provisional estimates suggest deaths kept falling in 2025, to roughly 69,973. Even so, nearly 70,000 Americans dying in a single year keeps the overdose crisis among the nation’s deadliest public health challenges. Declining deaths do not mean the treatment system is reaching the people who need it. According to the most recent National Survey on Drug Use and Health, roughly 47.2 million people aged 12 or older needed treatment for a substance use disorder, and only about 7.6 million received it. Among people with opioid use disorder, only about 16% received medication. Until that gap narrows, the ground we have gained stays vulnerable. Federal overdose policy is fragmented across separate programs, agencies, and funding streams, but in practice, these interventions work as a continuum. Naloxone prevents death, Medicaid finances treatment, peer specialists connect people to care, and federal grants support the workforce and community organizations that deliver these services. Weaken one part and the whole system suffers. The House FY 2027 appropriations report shows the disconnect. It largely holds funding for major state treatment grants steady, with $1.6 billion for State Opioid Response grants and roughly $2 billion for the Substance Use Prevention, Treatment and Recovery Services Block Grant. Yet, it eliminates funding for harm reduction, including support for naloxone access. Holding these gains means funding the whole continuum rather than parts of it. The most important step is to hold State Opioid Response and block grant funding steady while continuing to fund the harm reduction efforts that reach people at the highest risk. A year-end health package offers an opportunity for Congress to support the care continuum. The bipartisan, bicameral Due Process Continuity of Care Act would let states keep Medicaid coverage in place for eligible people held before trial. Today, many people lose that coverage while awaiting the outcome of a case, before any conviction. The weeks right after someone leaves custody carry the highest overdose risk of any recovery point, partly because tolerance drops during any break in use. People are 40 to 129 times more likely to die of an overdose in the first two weeks after release than the general population, and overdose is the leading cause of death for people leaving incarceration. Continuing buprenorphine or methadone through this period reduces the risk of death by roughly 75%. For most of this population, Medicaid is what pays for that treatment. When coverage lapses, treatment tends to lapse with it. In one study, only 30% of those who left jail on medication were still receiving community treatment a month later, compared with 7% of those who left without it. Keeping coverage in place holds that thread together and is the fiscally responsible choice, since gaps in treatment produce worse outcomes and higher costs. Congress could also move an updated PEER Support Act. Identical House and Senate bills have bipartisan backing and address a shortage every treatment system runs into: too few trained people to help others enter care and stay in it. The bill would strengthen federal recognition of peer support specialists, keep the federal Office of Recovery in place, and examine the employment barriers that keep qualified people with lived experience out of the workforce. FROM $1,000 TO $149: TRUMP JUST UNLOCKED THE BIGGEST DRUG PRICE DROP IN 60 YEARS The greatest mistake Congress could make is to read declining deaths as evidence the crisis is resolving itself. This progress reflects years of sustained investment in treatment, harm reduction, recovery support, and the workforce behind them. The gains are also fragile, and pulling back now could slow or reverse them. The real measure of progress is whether a person who survives an overdose on Tuesday can begin treatment on Wednesday, stay connected to care in the months that follow, and keep that care even if they spend time in jail . Congress already has a strategy that is starting to work. The job now is to protect it and finish building it. Libby Jones is the associate vice president of the Overdose Prevention Initiative at the Global Health Advocacy Incubator. Jones leads the initiative’s advocacy efforts, advancing federal policies to reduce the overdose death rate in the United States by expanding access to treatment and recovery support services.