Declassified 2020 Assessment Found Conditions for Potential Lab Leak Existed at Wuhan Institute

A U.S. intelligence assessment that remained classified for more than five years concluded in May 2020 that China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology (“WIV”) possessed all of the conditions necessary for the accidental release of a laboratory-modified coronavirus before the COVID-19 pandemic began.

The assessment, prepared by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, was included in a trove of nearly 400 pages of COVID-19 origins records released June 18 by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard shortly before her departure from office.

The document release included internal U.S. intelligence emails, scientific publications, diplomatic cables, congressional correspondence and records related to U.S.-funded coronavirus research in Wuhan.

According to the report, researchers at the WIV had the capabilities, materials and research programs needed to create and release a coronavirus adapted to infect humans.

“We assess all of the necessary conditions for an accidental release of a laboratory-modified coronavirus—specifically a coronavirus adapted to recognize human cell receptors — were present at the Chinese Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in mid-to-late 2019,” the report states.

Based on that assessment, analysts assigned “equal weight” to three possible explanations for the emergence of SARS-CoV-2: a laboratory-modified virus that accidentally escaped, a naturally occurring virus that emerged outside a laboratory setting, or a naturally occurring virus that was accidentally released from a laboratory.

The report, dated May 27, 2020, was prepared by Lawrence Livermore’s Z Program, which supports U.S. intelligence and national security missions. The document states that analysts also relied on information from a CIA Field Analytic Conversation. Significant portions of the report remain redacted.

The assessment appears to match a document described by CIA whistleblower James Erdman III during Senate testimony last month. Erdman said a May 2020 report produced by a Department of Energy national laboratory concluded that all prerequisite conditions for a laboratory leak were present at the Wuhan Institute of Virology but was omitted from public intelligence assessments issued in 2020 and included only in a classified annex the following year.

The assessment further identified four conditions necessary for a laboratory-origin scenario: access to a virus closely related to SARS-CoV-2, a reverse-genetics system capable of modifying coronaviruses, experiments involving human ACE2 receptors and biosafety failures or laboratory accidents involving coronavirus research.

The report did not conclude that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered or that a laboratory leak occurred. Instead, it found that the Wuhan Institute of Virology possessed the scientific capabilities and research activities necessary for such a scenario.

The release came shortly after a deadline established by the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act, which required intelligence agencies to review and publicly release additional records related to the origins of COVID-19. The law directed intelligence officials to examine information concerning coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, funding sources for that research, gain-of-function experiments and efforts by the Chinese government to impede investigations into the pandemic’s origins.

Among the newly released materials was a final progress report from EcoHealth Alliance’s National Institutes of Health-funded bat coronavirus research project, which involved collaboration with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Much of the information in the report had previously surfaced through congressional investigations, Freedom of Information Act disclosures and media reporting. Its inclusion in the document release provides additional context about coronavirus research conducted through the partnership before the pandemic.

Intelligence Analysts Weighed Competing Theories

Separate records included in the June 18 disclosure show how U.S. intelligence analysts evaluated competing theories about the virus’s origins during the first months of the pandemic.

Newly released emails show officials debating gain-of-function research, reverse-genetics techniques, the virus’s furin cleavage site and competing scientific explanations for the emergence of SARS-CoV-2.

In one March 2020 exchange, an analyst urged colleagues to maintain “a very high threshold” before concluding that the virus resulted from gain-of-function research, referring to laboratory techniques that can increase a pathogen’s transmissibility or ability to infect new hosts.

While noting concerns about coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the analyst wrote that “Occam’s razor is the best guidance here,” arguing that natural explanations, including viral recombination, remained plausible. The analyst also cautioned against prematurely dismissing a laboratory-origin hypothesis.

“I’m not saying WIV isn’t guilty of creating this strain, but I think we need to pin it down hard before we make this assessment,” the analyst wrote. “I think the IC needs to be very thorough with its analysis.”

The emails show analysts weighing evidence that pointed in multiple directions. Some records discussed reports of coronavirus experiments at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, while others circulated scientific studies arguing that SARS-CoV-2 was not engineered and may have emerged naturally. Taken together, the exchanges suggest intelligence officials were evaluating competing hypotheses rather than working from a predetermined conclusion.

The newly released records build on previously obtained documents showing that Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) analysts were examining potential laboratory-origin scenarios as early as March 2020.

An internal genomic analysis produced three months later by scientists at the DIA’s National Center for Medical Intelligence also concluded that an engineered virus escaping from the Wuhan Institute of Virology was a plausible scenario. The report became one of the earliest detailed intelligence assessments to emerge publicly.

That DIA analysis, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, was not referenced in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s public summary of intelligence findings released as part of its 2021 review of COVID-19 origins.

While earlier DIA records demonstrated that intelligence officials were considering a laboratory-origin theory during the early stages of the pandemic, the newly released Lawrence Livermore assessment offers one of the clearest explanations to date for why some government analysts viewed the possibility as credible in 2020.

Records Renew Scrutiny of Fauci’s Role

The June 18 records release was accompanied by an ODNI press release accusing former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci of influencing intelligence assessments and misleading Congress about his interactions with intelligence officials.

A July 2021 email chain shows intelligence officials considered asking Fauci to review a COVID-19 origins assessment before deciding against the idea because of concerns that he could be perceived as having a conflict of interest.

The records also show analysts receiving views from other NIH officials that did not always align with Fauci’s public statements favoring a natural-origin explanation, while continuing to examine laboratory-origin scenarios and other evidence.

The ODNI press release separately cited testimony from an unnamed whistleblower who alleged retaliation against analysts who challenged conclusions favored by Fauci. That description closely mirrors testimony delivered last month by Erdman, a CIA senior operations officer who was detailed to an ODNI task force investigating COVID-19 origins.

Erdman told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that CIA analysts repeatedly concluded between 2021 and 2023 that a laboratory leak was the most likely explanation for the pandemic but that their findings were altered, suppressed or overridden by agency leadership.

He also alleged that Fauci influenced which outside scientists were consulted by intelligence officials and described broader efforts within the CIA to discourage dissenting views. Erdman said, however, that he found no direct evidence of a coordinated cover-up.

According to the ODNI press release, the whistleblower allegations have been referred to the intelligence community inspector general.