Glenn Beck: Tulsi Gabbard exposes foreign bio lab documents and the deep state is in PANIC



For years, discussion of the U.S.-funded biological laboratories in Ukraine was dismissed by critics as little more than a Russian talking point.

Now, newly declassified documents released by Tulsi Gabbard confirm it's real — but that’s not stopping establishment voices from calling her a propagandist.

“Tulsi comes out, what was it, Friday, and she releases, she declassifies slides of these documents about U.S.-funded bio labs in Ukraine and beyond. Over 40 labs, hundreds of millions, dangerous pathogens, anthrax, plague, ebola,” Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck explains.

“And now it’s a Russian conspiracy theory that those exist,” he says.


“Does it make common sense to you if we have anthrax and ebola sitting in a laboratory in Ukraine that is currently at war with Russia? Do you think it’s a good idea or should we just go take a flamethrower and burn all of those dangerous pathogens out of those buildings?” he asks.

“Why do we have them sitting there in these bio labs that are in a war zone? Now, look at the loudest people shouting about this. The ones who are saying, 'You know, she’s a conspiracy theorist,’” he continues, pointing out that these people include “embedded Ukraine correspondents, strong advocates to send more money to Ukraine in Congress, and defense analysts that are tied to the status quo.”

These, Glenn says, are “the same people clutching their pearls over the new DNI chief. They don’t like what she did with Ukraine.”

“They’re framing this whole thing as Kremlin propaganda,” he explains. “Like Tulsi Gabbard is now working for the Kremlin. Have you ever noticed when outsiders get close to auditing foreign entanglements, surveillance powers, risky overseas labs, the defenses go nuclear?”

“All of a sudden, it’s got to be stopped. It’s the worst problem ever. They just go crazy. To me, it feels like fear of exposure,” he continues, adding, “And maybe not all of them, but somewhere, somebody in that web is applying enormous pressure.”

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Trump’s new tariffs will put America’s rivals on notice



Though the Trump administration has faced a series of legal setbacks on tariffs, it seems to have found a solution. After the Supreme Court ruled that the administration’s reciprocal tariffs were wrongfully imposed, the president immediately leapt to Plan B: Section 122 tariffs, which allow the temporary placement of global tariffs.

But these tariffs — derived from the Trade Act of 1974, which Trump used to install a 10% levy on most imported goods — expire in just over two months, and a court has ruled them unlawful. Although that case is still working through the system, the administration is already planning to replace Section 122 tariffs with Section 301 tariffs. These, too, stem from the Trade Act, but unlike the previous tariffs, they will be here to stay.

These tariffs ... are durable, cover almost all American imports, and leave no questions for investors.

They will also allow the Trump administration to target countries that have relied on unfair trade practices such as lax environmental standards that let our trade “partners” produce at excess capacity — essentially to get one over on the United States.

Section 301, in short, gives the president the power to counter unfair foreign trade practices. Unlike the reciprocal and 122 tariffs, they can be placed only after a long process that includes public hearings and comment periods. While this may frustrate those who want quick action, the process practically guarantees courts will not rule them unconstitutional, as the authority is laid out explicitly in the statutory text.

Currently, the only active 301 tariffs are against China, which have been in place since the first Trump administration. But the second Trump administration is planning to broaden the use of Section 301 significantly.

The Office of the United States Trade Representative launched two investigations in the spring that covered 60 countries, accounting for nearly all American imports. The first investigation focused on products made with forced labor across the globe. Earlier this month, the administration revealed the results: Those countries, including the European Union, had failed to ban products made with forced labor or to stop forced labor within their borders.

The second investigation, which is somewhat narrower in scope, is ongoing. It targets “excess capacity” — essentially unfair government intervention stemming from weak or absent environmental regulations abroad, with pollutants from China having been found in American water and air. This harms America’s labor force and limits businesses’ ability to expand facilities and production.

According to United States Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, these tariffs are being pursued on “an accelerated timeframe” while still ensuring all legal requirements are being met. The next step for the forced labor tariffs will be a comment period ending in early July, followed by a hearing and — most likely — the announcement of the new tariffs.

By relying on Section 301, the Trump administration is making a smart play for three key reasons.

RELATED: Donald Trump is still the working-class president

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

First, President Trump is obviously committed to dismantling “free trade” ideology and replacing it with fair trade. Leaving office with only a handful of trade agreements and tariffs only on China — tariffs that all but the purest free traders would support — would not meaningfully advance that goal.

But if comprehensive Section 301 tariffs can be placed on countries found violating a range of agreements, it becomes significantly harder for future administrations to lift them, as the Biden administration discovered with the China tariffs levied by the first Trump administration.

Second, Section 301 is a more concrete process. It requires hearings and comment periods, conducted in a way where — even if the outcome is broadly understood — there are no surprises. Markets will therefore have essentially priced them in.

While President Trump’s reciprocal tariffs came from a well-reasoned place, their back-and-forth nature spooked investors and at times threatened his broader economic agenda. These tariffs, by contrast, are durable, cover almost all American imports, and leave no questions for investors.

Most importantly, Section 301 allows the United States to target trade both broadly and narrowly. Broadly, in the sense that a wide array of countries can be targeted at once, as the investigation of more than 60 countries shows. Narrowly, in that it allows the administration to focus on problems long derided by President Trump, including topics many conservatives have overlooked such as “inadequate environmental protections” and labor law violations.

In previous Republican administrations, these would not have been priorities. But the United States has extremely strong environmental protections and labor laws; ignoring the disparity between our laws and those of our competitors means trade deficits never close and American jobs get offshored.

With Section 301, that era is ending. New global tariffs will soon arrive, and this time they won’t be blocked by a court.

Editor’s note: This article was published originally at the American Mind.

Why Peace in Armenia Matters—And Why Trump Deserves Some Credit

With Donald Trump and the Iranian regime lurching between continuing an economic war of attrition and announcing that a deal is imminent, the Persian Gulf remains volatile. But just to the north of Iran, an earlier Trump peace offensive is yielding its first fruits.

The post Why Peace in Armenia Matters—And Why Trump Deserves Some Credit appeared first on .

America desperately needs better election security



If there is a single idea that President Donald Trump holds with conviction, it is that the 2020 election was stolen.

Millions of Americans agree with him. How it was stolen, and by whom, is still being investigated six years later. That is a problem, because another national election arrives this fall, and Americans deserve an answer as to whether the way we now conduct elections can actually produce honest results.

Normal legislative remedies have failed. Congress has not passed the SAVE Act to ensure that only citizens vote, nor does it appear likely it will. It has done nothing about mass mail-in balloting or the vulnerabilities of electronic voting systems. Yet these are precisely the parts of the system that millions of Americans no longer trust — and for good reason.

The notion that the federal government has no role in federal elections is plainly wrong.

Consider what happened this past April. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell summoned the chief executives of America’s largest banks to an unannounced meeting, alarmed by a new artificial-intelligence model capable of finding and exploiting security flaws faster than any human defender could patch them.

If the men charged with protecting the nation’s financial system feel compelled to convene Wall Street on short notice over what artificial intelligence now makes possible, our election systems — built with similar computer technology but with far less security — are open to the same threat and worse.

Our electronic voting systems

For most of American history, Americans voted on paper ballots, counted by human beings, watched by other human beings. Electronic voting promised speed and accuracy. What it delivered is elections that take weeks instead of a day, accuracy that is openly in doubt, and a counting process that has lost the transparency a republic requires.

Citing proprietary software, the major vendors have become black boxes. The public is told to trust the output. Oversight is inadequate, and skepticism is the rational response.

The deeper problem is the very idea that voting and tabulation should be done electronically. The major suppliers — Election Systems & Software, Dominion Voting Systems (now Liberty Vote), and Hart InterCivic — all record and tabulate American votes on networked digital equipment running proprietary software. The vulnerability is, in part, that many of the electronic components are made in communist China. But even if all the components were made in the United States, they are not immune to a remote intrusion, a firmware exploit, or a software supply-chain attack.

The vulnerability is the architecture itself: an opaque, software-driven counting process exposed, directly or indirectly, to any determined bad actor, most especially a nation-state adversary. That is not a vulnerability at the margin. It is a structural compromise of the most sensitive function of self-government.

This is not theoretical. The People’s Liberation Army fields a cyber force approaching one million men, and American critical infrastructure is one of its principal targets. In 2019, federal officials seized a Chinese-built power transformer destined for Colorado; analysis at Sandia National Laboratory revealed what appeared to be a hardware back door enabling remote disablement.

In 2023, Microsoft identified Volt Typhoon, a Chinese campaign pre-positioning malware inside U.S. critical infrastructure to enable sabotage. To imagine that our election systems are immune to the same treatment is folly, more so now that the aforementioned use of artificial intelligence has become another weapon in the adversary’s arsenal.

Some will point to the recent Reuters account of a federal examination of Dominion machines seized from Puerto Rico, in which investigators reportedly found no Venezuelan code and only one chip sourced from China. They will conclude that the foreign-component concern has been overstated. But that misses the point entirely.

The question is not whether a particular batch of machines, examined on one occasion, contained components from a designated adversary. The question is whether a computerized voting system, however sourced and however audited, can be defended against the cyber capabilities of a nation-state intelligence service.

The honest answer is no. The same Chinese cyber force that pre-positioned malware in our power grid, water systems, and ports does not require a chip stamped in Shenzhen to reach an American voting machine. It requires only that the machine exist, be connected to a network at some point in its life, and run software that can be updated. All three conditions are met.

RELATED: John Cornyn’s defeat could be the end of the GOP establishment

Antranik Tavitian/Bloomberg/Getty Images

New evidence

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has declassified the Jan. 15, 2020, National Intelligence Council memorandum “Vulnerabilities in U.S. 2020 Election Infrastructure,” which judged that Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea all had “the capability to compromise U.S. election infrastructure for the 2020 presidential election.”

Senior officials briefed President Trump in February 2020. The public was never told. Subsequent declassified memos indicate that Chinese actors gained access to voter-registration databases in 12 to 18 states. Gabbard has opened a probe into allegations that intelligence officials suppressed this evidence, kept it out of the President’s Daily Brief, and hid it from Congress.

This was a serious misrepresentation by members of the Intelligence Community, especially since the Chinese Communist Party declared a "People’s War" against the United States in May 2019 in response to President Trump’s efforts to halt its theft of American intellectual property.

Communist China, which spends roughly $20 billion a year on intelligence and influence operations inside the United States, has every interest, as a matter of high government policy, in who sits in the Oval Office.

The motive could not be plainer. A second Trump term meant continued tariffs, continued enforcement against Chinese IP theft, continued pressure on Huawei, ZTE, and the Chinese semiconductor industry, and a hardening U.S. posture across the Indo-Pacific. A Biden administration meant the reversal of all of it.

Consider the numbers. Obama received 69 million votes in 2008. Clinton received 66 million in 2016. Biden received 81 million in 2020. A 15 million-vote surge for the least charismatic Democrat in living memory cannot be explained by enthusiasm.

The January 2020 assessment noted that “adversaries could also use the registration data ... to tailor other interference or influence efforts.” It is well within the realm of possibility that communist China, armed with the names on those rolls, mounted an industrial-scale effort to produce counterfeit ballots indistinguishable from genuine ones and therefore votes for Joe Biden.

Such a possibility must at least be entertained. Otherwise, one is left to ask the obvious question no one in Washington wants to ask: Why did communist China hack into those voter databases in the first place?

Can elections be secured?

Congress will not act. Blue states will not reform their mail-in practices or replace their electronic systems. Securing federal elections therefore falls to the president in his role as chief magistrate. Two executive orders are needed even if they will be challenged in court.

The first is an emergency declaration outlawing electronic voting machines in federal elections, on the grounds that any networked, software-driven counting system is inherently vulnerable to nation-state cyberattack and cannot, under current conditions, deliver an election the public can verify. Executive Order 13848 from 2018 recognized the threat of foreign interference but triggers only after the fact.

America cannot afford after-the-fact remedies.

The second would require, since the electronic voting machines would no longer be used, federal elections to be conducted on paper ballots, hand-counted by human beings observed by other human beings, with photo ID, accurate voter rolls, election-day voting, and mail-in ballots reserved for the military and the genuinely confined. The counting would be live streamed. The result would be the most transparent election in American history.

States today hold the constitutional delegation to conduct elections, and ideally, they would administer such a system themselves. Given the political divide, many will refuse. One alternative is for the federal government — preferably the National Guard, federalized and operating under each state’s adjutant general — to administer the election directly.

Critics will invoke Article I, Section 4, which empowers Congress to alter the times, places, and manner of federal elections. That route would be preferable if our political system were not broken. Others will invoke states’ rights. But states do not have rights. Citizens have natural rights, and states are obliged to defend them. When states fail to defend the most basic right of a self-governing people – the right to a fair election – the federal government has the duty to act.

RELATED: Polarization may be the cure — and the clarity — America needs

Elen11/Getty Images

The country’s critical infrastructure, which includes our election system, falls under the Department of Homeland Security. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and the Election Assistance Commission sit in the executive branch. The notion that the federal government has no role in federal elections is plainly wrong.

The problem is that those agencies are not currently equipped to defend against a nation-state cyber adversary at this scale. And cybersecurity against communist China is beyond the capacity of any individual state government acting alone.

If federal authorities had actionable intelligence that a cyberattack was going to occur on America’s electronic voting systems during a federal election but did not have the ability to stop it, are they simply to stand aside and let the attack occur?

The commonsense approach would be to find a method of conducting the election that was not vulnerable to cyberattack. That is precisely why the president’s executive order is so urgently needed.

The choice at hand

As Director Gabbard’s declassifications confirm, China has gained access to the voter-registration data that defines our electorate. No election conducted on networked computers that a hostile intelligence service has the demonstrated capacity to breach, and on voter rolls that service has already breached, can deliver the legitimacy a republic requires.

Paper ballots, hand-counted, observed in the open, can. However controversial it may sound, it is the only way to ensure a fair election for the American people.

This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

Mike Pence Enabled DOJ Lawfare So Of Course He Opposes Restoring Its Victims

Pence is entitled to oppose compensating victims of lawfare. What he is not entitled to do is pretend he had no role in creating them.

30 people arrested per day ‘for WORD CRIMES’: Journalist BANNED from the UK exposes dystopian agenda



A few years ago, journalist Ezra Levant received the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Medal for defending freedom of expression after refusing to “bend the knee” and publishing Danish cartoons of Muhammad.

Now, the prime minister of the United Kingdom has banned him from the country.

“To have the prime minister of the United Kingdom ban me, a journalist … I’ve never done anything illegal in my life. I’ve never even had a parking ticket in the U.K. When I go there, it’s to do journalism,” Levant tells Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck.

“Glenn, your radio and you would be shut down within a week; I’m sorry to say it,” he continues. “Your First Amendment in America is more important than almost anything else, because with that, you can fight for all your other freedoms. Never give up your First Amendment.”


While everyone assumes other Western countries have the same First Amendment rights, Levant explains that they’re different.

“In the United Kingdom, according to the Times of London, a very prestigious newspaper, on any given day, on average, 30 people are arrested for what they post on social media. 30 a day. I’m not a fan of Russia, but even they don’t arrest 30 people a day for word crimes,” Levant says.

And the government doesn’t go after those who are actually harming others.

“They’re targeting people who criticize the government, especially on the issue of mass immigration. And the number-one thing that they’re scared about talking about is the rape gangs of largely Pakistani Muslim men targeting white girls,” Levant explains.

“When people have a march or a rally against these rapes, the government goes into freakout mode because it challenges the entire multiculturalism and immigration structure of the U.K.,” he says.

“So,” he continues, “never give up your free speech, Glenn, because you can see it in real time in the U.K.”

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Ukrainian military drone shot down over NATO country, prompting apologies



Ukrainian military hardware appears to have once again endangered the people of a NATO member nation.

Estonian Prime Minister Kristen Michal announced on Tuesday that "a drone entering Estonian airspace was detected quickly and shot down over Southern Estonia by a NATO Air Policing fighter jet."

'These trajectories have to be as far from the NATO territory as possible.'

Michal thanked Estonia's "NATO allies, the Romanian Air Force, and the fighter pilots who carried out this mission with professionalism and precision," adding that "NATO is vigilant, prepared, and capable of acting rapidly when needed."

Hanno Pevkur, the defense minister for the Baltic nation of 1.36 million souls, confirmed that a Romanian Air Force F-16 pilot participating in a training flight shot down the drone using a single missile. The remains of the drone crashed several hundred meters away from a residential building in the Central Estonian town of Põltsamaa.

A resident told state media that he saw two fighter jets soar overhead, then heard a loud bang.

"There was a loud blast, and I saw the drone falling from the sky," said the witness. "As it was already close to the ground, I heard another blast."

It's presently unclear whether the drone was carrying any warheads.

Heorhii Tykhyi, a spokesperson for Ukraine, apologized to Estonia "for such unintended incidents," reported DW.

RELATED: Killer drones have conquered the skies. Can we ever be safe again?

Sergei SUPINSKY/AFP/Getty Images

The Estonian Defense Forces claimed that the Ukrainian drone stole into Estonian airspace "under the conditions of heavy electronic warfare, including GPS spoofing and jamming, by Russia."

Defense Minister Pevkur said in an interview with Estonian Public Broadcasting that Ukrainian officials — who do not have permission to use Estonian airspace — "have indeed apologized, but they have also reaffirmed that they are doing everything on their part to ensure that these drones do not enter NATO airspace."

Pevkur expressed some frustration with Kyiv, telling the Associated Press, "We’ve said to the Ukrainians all the time that if you’re attacking Russian positions or Russian targets, then these trajectories have to be as far from the NATO territory as possible."

The Estonian Internal Security Service has launched a criminal investigation into the aerial intrusion.

In recent months, numerous Ukrainian military drones have entered the airspace of friendly neighboring countries.

A pair of Ukrainian drones entered Estonian and Latvian airspace on March 25, for example. One of the drones struck Estonia's Auvere power ⁠station and the other crash-landed. Officials suggested that the drones were supposed to be part of a Ukrainian attack on Russia.

Days later, two drones entered Finnish airspace, then crashed near the city of Kouvola. Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo told his country's state media that the drones appeared to be of Ukrainian origin.

Earlier this month, two more Ukrainian drones strayed into NATO airspace, crashing ultimately on Latvian soil. Reuters reported that one of the drones exploded at an oil storage facility, damaging four tanks.

Drones aren't the only unwanted surprises Ukraine had sent into NATO's back yard.

A S-300 air defense missile landed in Poland on Nov. 15, 2022, rocking the village of Przewodów and killing two farm workers.

Ukrainian officials and numerous media outlets — including the Associated Press, CNN, CBS News, and Fox News — rushed to suggest that the explosion was the handiwork of the Russians, which would have been sufficient to trigger articles 4 and 5 of the NATO charter, potentially putting the U.S. into direct conflict with the nuclear power.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the Ukrainian president whose term officially ended in May 2024, said in the wake of the deadly explosion, "Russian missiles hit Poland, the territory of our friendly country. People died."

The Polish and American governments rejected the suggestion that Russia fired the missile, noting instead that it was likely a Ukrainian missile that had accidentally been lobbed into a NATO country.

Dmytro Kuleba, Ukraine's foreign minister at the time, called the claim that the explosion was caused by Ukraine a "conspiracy theory."

Polish investigators, denied any relevant intelligence from Kyiv, later claimed that the missile was fired by Ukraine. The particular missile that landed in Przewodów has a maximum range of 56 miles, and Russian forces were nowhere near close enough to land the shot.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Pentagon is blowing a fortune fighting bargain-bin drones



For the past two years, one image has circulated among defense analysts: a U.S. Navy destroyer firing a Standard Missile-2, which costs about $2.1 million, to intercept a Houthi drone that likely cost $2,000.

Nobody in that chain made a bad decision. The ship had to be defended. But the Navy has now fired more than 200 such missiles in the Red Sea since late 2023 at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. Project that math onto future conflicts — Taiwan, the Baltics, the Persian Gulf — and the picture gets alarming fast.

Sophistication matters. Volume matters more. Flexibility may matter most of all.

The standard answer is to demand better technology: lasers, interceptor drones, smarter jamming. But that misses what Ukraine has shown over three years of the largest sustained drone war in history. Much of the technology needed to defeat cheap drones at reasonable cost already exists. What America lacks is the doctrine, procurement flexibility, and industrial base to field it at scale.

What defenders need is simpler: distributed sensors, disciplined targeting, and layered defenses that match the cheapest effective response to each threat.

Ukraine now produces about 1,500 interceptor drones per day. They cost $1,200 and $4,700 apiece, a fraction of the $29,100 to $46,520 Shahed drones they destroy. One in three Russian aerial threats over Ukraine is now brought down by an interceptor drone rather than a missile. Ukraine’s overall interception rate sits around 80%, achieved not through Patriot batteries alone but through layers of cheap, rapidly iterated hardware built by 450 domestic manufacturers.

Ukraine’s advantage is not just volume. It is decentralization. Units, volunteers, and defense-tech firms operate in a flexible ecosystem that lets them adapt systems to terrain, weather, and enemy tactics as conditions change.

The American model moves the other way: centralized requirements, standardized programs, and long acquisition cycles. That system can produce extraordinary weapons. It cannot adapt when the battlefield changes faster than the program office. The United States faces different constraints, especially at sea and across global commitments, but the underlying economics do not change.

As of 2022, the United States was producing roughly 500 to 600 Patriot missiles per year. That stock can be burned through in weeks during a high-intensity conflict. This is not a missile-design flaw. It is the result of three decades of underinvestment in manufacturing capacity and a procurement system optimized for sophistication over volume. America still buys platforms better than it buys kill chains — the linked system of sensors, decisions, and interceptors — and counter-drone defense demands the reverse.

Meanwhile, Russia, working from Iranian Shahed blueprints, scaled launches to more than 44,000 in the first 10 months of 2025, four times the previous year’s rate. The United States is now in an industrial competition and, on current trajectory, losing it on volume.

RELATED: The combination that can renew America’s defense industry

Sean Gallup/Getty Images

The tactical lessons from Ukraine are hardly mysterious. Detect early, match the weapon to the threat, and keep defenses mobile. Ukraine’s mobile fire groups — pickup trucks with machine guns and thermal imagers — proved effective enough that Russia rushed to copy them, with limited success. Israel’s Iron Beam laser intercepts threats at roughly $2 to $5 per shot. These systems work.

The problem is that “works in Ukraine” and “enters U.S. inventory at scale” are separated by an acquisition process that takes years, prizes exquisite performance over adequate volume, and was never designed for six-week innovation cycles.

The 2020 war in Nagorno-Karabakh offers another warning. Armenia’s air defenses collapsed not because drones are invincible, but because Armenia lacked modern, layered defenses. Institutional neglect, not technological inevitability, proved decisive.

None of this means expensive interceptors are obsolete. Advanced threats still require advanced interceptors. And as CSIS has noted, a $2 million missile protecting a $2 billion ship and its crew is rational. The point is not to abandon high-end systems. It is to stop treating them as the first and only answer to every aerial threat and to build the lower tiers of the defense stack with the same urgency we bring to the top.

That means procurement reform that many defense insiders regard as somewhere between very hard and politically impossible. It means accepting lower unit performance in exchange for higher production volume, a trade the Pentagon’s acquisition culture instinctively resists. It means pressuring major defense contractors to share production with smaller, faster manufacturers.

Sophistication matters. Volume matters more. Flexibility may matter most of all.

Ukraine learned that lesson under bombardment, because it had no choice. The United States still has the luxury of learning it in advance.

The danger is that luxury breeds delay.

‘What Is Not Ready?’: Maria Bartiromo Presses Acting AG On Probe Into Trump-Russia Hoax

'People watching are frustrated'

Vindicated? Gabbard probes the biolabs Romney called her a 'traitor' for mentioning.



The Trump administration is investigating the U.S.-funded Ukrainian biolabs that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was previously smeared as "treasonous" and "traitorous" for bringing to the public's attention.

Then

Gabbard issued a video statement while a private citizen in 2022 where she claimed that "there are 25-30 U.S.-funded biolabs in Ukraine. According to the U.S. government, these biolabs are conducting research on dangerous pathogens."

In order to mitigate the risk of breaches at the facilities, Gabbard said that "these labs need to be shut down immediately, and the pathogens that they hold need to be destroyed."

'The era of lies and betrayal is over.'

Gabbard was viciously attacked over the video even though days earlier, then-Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland — a woman whose meddling in Ukrainian affairs helped pave the way for the ruinous overthrow of its previous government — admitted that such labs existed.

Nuland testified to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee both that "Ukraine has biological research facilities" and the U.S. government was worried that "Russian forces may be seeking to gain control" of "research materials" in the labs. Then-Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) then steered Nuland into prophesying that should there be a biological or chemical incident in Ukraine, the Russians would necessarily be to blame.

Following Nuland's admissions, then-Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines testified to the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee that Ukraine "operates a little over a dozen" biolabs for bio-defense; that the U.S. had "provided assistance" to the labs, at least "in the context of biosafety"; and there was room for misuse of "some of the material that's there that is not intended for weapon purposes but nevertheless could be used in dangerous ways."

RELATED: Chinese fraudster convicted for ripping off Americans with bogus COVID tests

Arun SANKAR/AFP/Getty Images

The Pentagon also noted in a fact sheet that month that the U.S., through the Biological Threat Reduction Program, had by that point dumped roughly $200 million in Ukraine since 2005 "supporting 46 Ukrainian laboratories, health facilities, and diagnostic sites."

The fact sheet noted further that BTRP sought to help the Ukrainians "consolidate and secure pathogens and to continue to ensure Ukraine can detect and report disease outbreaks before they pose security or stability threats."

Despite the Biden administration bolstering in advance the claims that Gabbard would make in her March 13, 2022, video, failed presidential candidate Mitt Romney accused Gabbard of "parroting false Russian propaganda" and spreading "treasonous lies" that "may well cost lives."

Then-Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), a Ukraine hawk who later stumped for Kamala Harris' doomed presidential campaign, shared Gabbard's video, writing, "Actual Russian propaganda. Traitorous."

Gabbard noted that such remarks were "slanderous" and stuck to her guns.

Now

Now in a position to do the work she took abuse recommending the government do in 2022, Gabbard is investigating over 120 biolabs outside the U.S. that have been funded by American taxpayers.

The spy chief told the New York Post on Monday that her team will "identify where these labs are, what pathogens they contain, and what 'research' is being conducted to end dangerous gain-of-function research that threatens the health and well-being of the American people and the world."

"The COVID-19 pandemic revealed the catastrophic global impact research on dangerous pathogens in biolabs can have," Gabbard said. "Yet despite these obvious dangers, politicians, so-called health professionals, like Dr. Fauci, and entities within the Biden administration's national security team lied to the American people about the existence of these US-funded and supported biolabs and threatened those who attempted to expose the truth."

ODNI officials confirmed that more than 40 of the biolabs under investigation are — as Gabbard indicated four years ago — in Ukraine and could "be at risk of compromise" due to the ongoing war.

Trump ODNI officials said that the Biden administration's mixed messaging about the Ukrainian biolabs were part of an "Information Resilience" strategy to "shape the public narrative" to simultaneously "mitigate and counter foreign malign influence" and downplay American ties to the war-zone research. In other words, they were pushing falsehoods domestically to neutralize foreign half-truths.

The State Department, for instance, noted in a carefully worded March 9, 2022, statement that "the United States does not own or operate any chemical or biological laboratories in Ukraine." The State Department proceeded to reject the claim, not that the U.S. and Ukraine were collaborating on biological and chemical research, but that they were "conducting chemical and biological weapons activities."

"The prior administration bankrolled dangerous gain-of-function research and foreign biolabs with American tax dollars, then deliberately hid it from the American people," Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said in a statement.

"Under President Trump's leadership, DNI Tulsi Gabbard and the entire Cabinet are righting these historic wrongs and delivering justice for our warfighters and the ones they protect," Hegseth continued. "The era of lies and betrayal is over."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!