Earlier today President Trump signed an executive order blocking the U.S. development of “gain of function” research, the manipulation of biological agents to weaponize their lethality. [Executive Order Here]
As Health and Human Service Secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr noted in his remarks, the modern U.S. development of the bioweapons program was an outcome of a little-known subset within the Patriot Act that allowed scientists to develop bioweapons without legal accountability for any negative outcome. Let us not pretend….
In 2014 a U.S. developed bioweapon escaped a lab and in response President Obama stopped the program. However, the stoppage only blocked development of the bioweapons on U.S. soil. The various government agencies then continued the “gain of function” bioweapon development by offshoring the experiments and conducting the research in foreign countries. The SARS-CoV-2 weapon, COVID-19, was developed in one of those labs in Wuhan, China, and escaped creating the pandemic of 2020. WATCH:
EXECUTIVE ORDER – Section 1. Purpose. Dangerous gain-of-function research on biological agents and pathogens has the potential to significantly endanger the lives of American citizens. If left unrestricted, its effects can include widespread mortality, an impaired public health system, disrupted American livelihoods, and diminished economic and national security.
The Biden Administration allowed dangerous gain-of-function research within the United States with insufficient levels of oversight. It also actively approved, through the National Institutes of Health, Federal life-science research funding in China and other countries where there is limited United States oversight or reasonable expectation of biosafety enforcement.
This recklessness, if unaddressed, may lead to the proliferation of research on pathogens (and potential pathogens) in settings without adequate safeguards, even after COVID-19 revealed the risk of such practices.
Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to ensure that United States federally funded research benefits American citizens without jeopardizing our Nation’s security, strength, or prosperity. My Administration will balance the prevention of catastrophic consequences with maintaining readiness against biological threats and driving global leadership in biotechnology, biological countermeasures, biosecurity, and health research.
Sec. 3. Stop Dangerous Gain-of-Function Research. (a) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), and in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the heads of other relevant executive departments and agencies (agencies) identified by the Director of OSTP, shall establish guidance for the heads of relevant agencies, to the extent consistent with the terms and conditions of the funding, to immediately:
(i) end Federal funding of dangerous gain-of-function research conducted by foreign entities in countries of concern (e.g., China) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6627(c), or in other countries where there is not adequate oversight to ensure that the countries are compliant with United States oversight standards and policies; and
(ii) end Federal funding of other life-science research that is occurring in countries of concern or foreign countries where there is not adequate oversight to ensure that the countries are compliant with United States oversight standards and policies and that could reasonably pose a threat to public health, public safety, and economic or national security, as determined by the heads of relevant agencies.
(b) The Director of OSTP, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the APNSA, and in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the heads of other relevant agencies, shall establish guidance for the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the heads of other relevant agencies with respect to suspension of federally funded dangerous gain-of-function research, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the relevant research funding, at least until the completion of the policy called for in section 4(a) of this order. Heads of agencies shall report any exception to a suspension to the Director of OSTP for review in consultation with the APNSA and the heads of relevant agencies.
Sec. 4. Secure Future Research Through Commonsense Frameworks. (a) Within 120 days of the date of this order, the Director of OSTP, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6627 and in coordination with the APNSA and the heads of relevant agencies, shall revise or replace the 2024 “United States Government Policy for Oversight of Dual Use Research of Concern and Pathogens with Enhanced Pandemic Potential” to:
(i) strengthen top-down independent oversight; increase accountability through enforcement, audits, and improved public transparency; and clearly define the scope of covered research while ensuring the United States remains the global leader in biotechnology, biological countermeasures, and health research;
(ii) incorporate enforcement mechanisms, including those described in section 7 of this order, into Federal funding agreements to ensure compliance with all Federal policies governing dangerous gain-of-function research; and
(iii) provide for review and revision at least every 4 years, or as appropriate.
(b) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Director of OSTP, in coordination with the APNSA and the heads of relevant agencies, shall revise or replace the 2024 “Framework for Nucleic Acid Synthesis Screening” (Framework) to ensure it takes a commonsense approach and effectively encourages providers of synthetic nucleic acid sequences to implement comprehensive, scalable, and verifiable synthetic nucleic acid procurement screening mechanisms to minimize the risk of misuse. The heads of all agencies that fund life-science research shall ensure that synthetic nucleic acid procurement is conducted through providers or manufacturers that adhere to the updated Framework. To ensure compliance, the updated Framework shall incorporate the enforcement mechanisms described in section 7 of this order. The Framework shall be reviewed and revised at least every 4 years, or as appropriate
Sec. 5. Manage Risks Associated with Non-federally Funded Research. Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Director of OSTP, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the APNSA, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, and the heads of other relevant agencies, shall develop and implement a strategy to govern, limit, and track dangerous gain-of-function research across the United States that occurs without Federal funding and other life-science research that could cause significant societal consequences. This strategy shall include actions to achieve comprehensive, scalable, and verifiable nucleic acid synthesis screening in non-federally funded settings. Any gaps in authorities necessary to achieve the goals of this strategy shall be addressed in a legislative proposal to be sent to the President, through the Director of OSTP and the APNSA, within 180 days of the date of this order.
Sec. 6. Increase Accountability and Public Transparency of Dangerous Gain-of-Function Research. The Director of OSTP, in coordination with the APNSA and the heads of relevant agencies, shall ensure that the revised policy called for in section 4(a) of this order includes a mechanism whereby research institutions that receive Federal funding must report dangerous gain-of-function research, and to the maximum extent permitted by law, include research that is supported by non-Federal funding mechanisms. The reporting mechanism shall provide a publicly available source of information about research programs and awards identified pursuant to this section, including, where permitted by law, those that have been stopped or suspended pursuant to sections 3(a) and 3(b) of this order, and all future programs and awards that are covered by the updated policy developed in section 4(a) of this order. This reporting shall be conducted in a way that does not compromise national security or legitimate intellectual property interests of subject institutions.
Sec. 7. Future Enforcement Terms. The Secretary of Health and Human Services and the heads of other relevant agencies shall, consistent with existing laws and regulations, include in every life-science research contract or grant award:
(a) a term requiring the contractual counterparty or grant recipient to agree that its compliance in all respects with the terms of this order and any applicable regulations promulgated by the contracting or grant-offering agency is material to the Government’s payment decisions for purposes of 31 U.S.C. 3729(b)(4);
(b) a term requiring such counterparty or recipient to certify that it does not operate, participate in, or fund any dangerous gain-of-function research or other life-science research in foreign countries that could cause significant societal consequences or generate unnecessary national security risks, and that does not comply with this order and the policies ordered herein;
(c) a term stating that a violation of the terms of this order or any applicable regulations promulgated by the contracting or grant-offering agency by any grant recipient may be considered a violation of such term by the recipient’s employer or institution; and
(d) a term stating that any grant recipient, employer, or institution found to be in violation of the terms of this order or any applicable regulations promulgated by the contracting or grant-making agency may be subject to immediate revocation of ongoing Federal funding, and up to a 5-year period of ineligibility for Federal life-sciences grant funds offered by the Department of Health and Human Services and other relevant agencies.
Sec. 8. Definitions. For the purposes of this order,
“dangerous gain-of-function research” means scientific research on an infectious agent or toxin with the potential to cause disease by enhancing its pathogenicity or increasing its transmissibility. Covered research activities are those that could result in significant societal consequences and that seek or achieve one or more of the following outcomes:
(a) enhancing the harmful consequences of the agent or toxin;
(b) disrupting beneficial immunological response or the effectiveness of an immunization against the agent or toxin;
(c) conferring to the agent or toxin resistance to clinically or agriculturally useful prophylactic or therapeutic interventions against that agent or toxin or facilitating their ability to evade detection methodologies;
(d) increasing the stability, transmissibility, or the ability to disseminate the agent or toxin;
(e) altering the host range or tropism of the agent or toxin;
(f) enhancing the susceptibility of a human host population to the agent or toxin; or
(g) generating or reconstituting an eradicated or extinct agent or toxin.
[LINK]


The following P3CO (biosafety) Framework was established in 2017. The EO Trump just signed was PROJECTED to occur.
Department of Health and Human Services
Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR)
https://aspr.hhs.gov/AboutASPR/ProgramOffices/Documents/ASPR-Organizational-Chart.pdf
P3CO
Enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogen Oversight Framework
S3: Science Safety Security
https://aspr.hhs.gov/S3/Pages/Enhanced-Potential-Pandemic-Pathogen-Oversight-Framework.aspx
The HHS P3CO Framework will remain in effect through May 6, 2025, on which date it will be replaced by the U.S. Government Policy for Oversight of Dual Use Research of Concern and Pathogens with Enhanced Pandemic Potential.
Near-Horizon DURC and PEPP Oversight Framework: May 2025
https://aspr.hhs.gov/S3/Pages/Near-Horizon-DURC-and-PEPP-Oversight-Framework-May-2025.aspx
———–
NIH Infectious Disease Researcher Calls for End of Dangerous Virus Studies
MAY 04, 2025
https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/cp/162842797
Where I got the tip to search for P3CO, the existing lab safety guidance:
Excerpts:
The NIH has repeatedly demonstrated a dangerous inability to safeguard public safety. The P3CO Framework was intended to enforce stricter oversight, but proved to be a hollow safeguard, allowing NIAID to continue funding dangerous research with a fig leaf for compliance…
But NIH’s errors are not merely a matter of oversight failure—they are the result of scientific arrogance compounded by an ingrained, symbiotic relationship between federal science officers and the research academics they fund. This relationship is mutually beneficial as scientists depend on NIH funding to build their careers, while NIH officers rely on these same scientists to generate the groundbreaking studies that justify new initiatives and expand NIH’s influence.
Academic scientists and NIH bureaucrats don’t just collaborate professionally—they often emerge from the same university laboratories, attend the same conferences, and publish together in the same journals. Instead of government oversight of academic research, we have a system that rewards allegiance and mutual advancement. This cozy relationship is cemented by lavish taxpayer-funded travel to international conferences, where federal officers and the university scientists they support fly around the world, stay together at luxury hotels, and forge alliances that prioritize career advancement over public safety.
This conflict of interest is baked into the system, making genuine oversight of dangerous research nearly impossible. This is not just my professional experience, emails show this is the case.
NIH’s pattern of circumventing research safeguards, misrepresenting funding, and the entrenched culture of mutual dependency between program officers and academics has created a system where oversight becomes performative and regulatory frameworks like P3CO become mere window dressing.
To prevent future disasters, gain-of-function virus research should end at the NIH and should not be funded by any federal agency. Moreover, the government needs to assume legal authority to prevent gain-of-function virus research at private companies or institutions as well. High-risk research that involves manipulating pathogens capable of causing global pandemics should not be treated as routine biomedical research—it should be viewed as having the same risk as bioweapons development.
Despite its defenders, gain-of-function research has not demonstrably contributed to the prevention of pandemics.
Dr. Mengele Fauci: “Nooo, they’re threatening my democracy.”
EXCELLENT.
Now let’s have some justice for Fauci and Collins.
MAGA.
Thanks, Sundance!
5+ years post C-19 & still no accountability, no consequence for the perpetrators, those genocidal monsters. Where’s the moral outrage, the condemnation after the release of this bio-weapon ww from Darpa (DOD) causing death, destruction & suffering on a planetary scale. We’re still at the blame game, china, china when ’tis the US now a rogue evil state…
Wuhan Virology Lab Continues Gain-of-Function Research on Coronaviruses
Posted May 7, 2025 By Martin Armstrong
“…… “Event 201. The world has widely ignored the October 18, 2019 simulation, co-sponsored by Bill Gates, the World Economic Forum, and John Hopkins. The 3.5 hour simulation depicted a coronavirus outbreak that passed from bats to pigs to people. In the simulation, the virus spread rapidly throughout the globe, overwhelming health systems and killing economies….”
“The Event 201 scenario
Event 201 simulates an outbreak of a novel zoonotic coronavirus transmitted from bats to pigs to people that eventually becomes efficiently transmissible from person to person, leading to a severe pandemic. The pathogen and the disease it causes are modeled largely on SARS, but it is more transmissible in the community setting by people with mild symptoms.
The disease starts in pig farms in Brazil, quietly and slowly at first, but then it starts to spread more rapidly in healthcare settings. When it starts to spread efficiently from person to person in the low-income, densely packed neighborhoods of some of the megacities in South America, the epidemic explodes. It is first exported by air travel to Portugal, the United States, and China and then to many other countries. Although at first some countries are able to control it, it continues to spread and be reintroduced, and eventually no country can maintain control.
There is no possibility of a vaccine being available in the first year. There is a fictional antiviral drug that can help the sick but not significantly limit spread of the disease.
Since the whole human population is susceptible, during the initial months of the pandemic, the cumulative number of cases increases exponentially, doubling every week. And as the cases and deaths accumulate, the economic and societal consequences become increasingly severe.
The scenario ends at the 18-month point, with 65 million deaths. The pandemic is beginning to slow due to the decreasing number of susceptible people. The pandemic will continue at some rate until there is an effective vaccine or until 80-90 % of the global population has been exposed. From that point on, it is likely to be an endemic childhood disease.”….”
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/corruption/wuhan-virology-lab-continues-gain-of-function-research-on-coronaviruses/
The Crimes of Anthony Fauci
Is incarceration just a matter of time?
ROBERT W MALONE MD, MS
MAY 06, 2025
“Never forget the evil done to the United States when Biden pardoned an accomplice to mass murder deeply involved in both the creation of the COVID-19 virus and bio-weapons development. Speculations surround his most likely profiteering from the various “pandemics” over the years, and the sudden jump in his family net worth after leaving Federal employment.
To quote:
“A pardon for ANY OFFENSES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.”
Think about that. The actual text of the pardon reads:….”
“…..That said, there may be an easier route to prosecute Anthony Fauci.
The DOJ can work with state prosecutors to uncover crimes. If the DOJ, during a joint investigation, finds evidence of a crime that has been pardoned federally, that evidence can still be shared with state prosecutors. State authorities may use that evidence to pursue state charges, as the presidential pardon does not extend to state offenses.
So, even if a presidential pardon blocks federal prosecution for the pardoned acts but does not shield the person from state prosecution, the DOJ can share evidence with state prosecutors if the conduct violates state law.
The DOJ can investigate and acquire federal documents related to monetary misconduct, ethical breaches, and even manslaughter, which can then be shared with state attorneys general and prosecutors.
Furthermore, that evidence could be shared with other governments….”
https://open.substack.com/pub/rwmalonemd/p/the-crimes-of-anthony-fauci
Pfizer mRNA Shots Alone Likely Responsible for Over 470,000 American Deaths: MIT/Florida Surgeon General Study
Analysis of Florida health data reveals Pfizer’s mRNA shot alone may have caused more U.S. deaths than any war in modern history.
NICOLAS HULSCHER, MPH
MAY 06, 2025
“Last week, I reported on the study headed by MIT Professor Retsef Levi and Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo titled, Twelve-Month All-Cause Mortality after Initial COVID-19 Vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech or mRNA-1273 among Adults Living in Florida:…”
“….Among 1.47 million Florida adults, those who received Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine had higher 12-month risks of all-cause, cardiovascular, COVID-19, and non-COVID-19 mortality compared to Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine recipients. However, upon closer inspection, the study is much more valuable than a simple brand comparison.
Recently, Steve Kirsch conducted further analysis of the study’s findings, plausibly extrapolating a conservative estimate of 470,000 American deaths from the Pfizer mRNA shots alone:…”
https://kirschsubstack.com/p/new-florida-brand-differential-study?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web
https://open.substack.com/pub/petermcculloughmd/p/pfizer-mrna-shots-alone-likely-killed
Does Trump’s Gain-of-Function Research ‘Ban’ Go Far Enough?
BENJAMIN BARTEE
MAY 07, 2025
The headline is rhetorical.
Spoiler: the answer is: “not by a damn sight.”
Also, the GOF “ban” isn’t actually a full-throated ban.
But it’s better than nothing….”
“….Regarding the Trump executive order, rather than outright banning gain-of-function research, it merely a.) bans federal funding for it, and b.) provides theoretical oversight of private-sector gain-of-function research — a far cry from what is needed, which is a full-on, blanket ban of the practice and criminal prosecutions of the biomedical terrorists who conduct these experiments….”
https://open.substack.com/pub/armageddonprose/p/does-trumps-gain-of-function-research