Former U.S. Representative Tulsi Gabbard said the United States historically funded more than 120 biological laboratories in 30 countries [1].

The allegation targets the Obama administration and suggests a pattern of government wrongdoing. If substantiated, the claims could reignite debates over the transparency of U.S. biological research funding, and international health security protocols.

Gabbard said these statements during a live broadcast on Times Now on Friday, June 28 [1]. She said the funding of these laboratories occurred under the Obama administration and that she possesses documents to substantiate these claims [2].

According to the Financial Express, the Director of National Intelligence confirmed that the U.S. funded over 120 labs [1]. However, the framing of this funding remains a point of contention. A former head of the EcoHealth Alliance said the implication that these laboratories were part of a covert bioweapon program is misleading [3].

There are conflicting reports regarding the evidence available to support Gabbard's claims. While Gabbard said she has documentation showing the Obama administration was complicit in the funding, the New Republic reported that she was unable to provide new information when pressed [2, 4].

The laboratories in question are located across 30 unnamed foreign countries [1]. Gabbard said she intends to release the documents she referenced during the broadcast to prove the administration's involvement [2].

This development follows a series of public assertions by Gabbard regarding the conduct of the Obama administration. The lack of immediate public disclosure of the referenced documents has led some observers to question the validity of the claims [4].

“The United States historically funded more than 120 biological laboratories in 30 countries”

This situation highlights a tension between the factual existence of U.S.-funded overseas biological research and the political interpretation of those programs. While the U.S. government may confirm the number of funded facilities, the dispute centers on whether these labs served legitimate public health purposes or clandestine objectives. The lack of immediate evidence provided by Gabbard suggests the claims may be intended to build political pressure rather than provide a legal or scientific indictment.