Gain of Function Liability for the US
Segment # 426
Finding the source of the COVID outbreak to a lab leak in Wuhan as a consequence of US funding is a bit more complicated than the media or the Trump administration is admitting. Ultimately I think both China and the U.S. will escape liability; however, both sides will need to find organizations and the individuals who were responsible to serve as as sacrificial lambs. The world will accept nothing less.
BREAKING: HHS Formally Debars EcoHealth Alliance, Dr. Peter Daszak After COVID Select Reveals Pandemic-Era Wrongdoing
WASHINGTON — Today, after an eight-month investigation, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) cut off all funding and formally debarred EcoHealth Alliance Inc. (EcoHealth) and its former President, Dr. Peter Daszak, for five years based on evidence uncovered by the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. In a new letter, HHS states “that a period of debarment for Dr. Daszak is necessary to protect the Federal Government’s business interests.” This letter also confirms that EcoHealth terminated Dr. Daszak’s employment effective January 6, 2025. EcoHealth and Dr. Daszak facilitated gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China without proper oversight and willingly violated multiple requirements of its multimillion-dollar National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant.
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) issued the following statement in response to the formal debarment:
“Justice for the American people was served today. Bad actor EcoHealth Alliance and its corrupt former President, Dr. Peter Daszak, were formally debarred by HHS for using taxpayer funds to facilitate dangerous gain-of-function research in China. Today’s decision is not only a victory for the U.S. taxpayer, but also for American national security and the safety of citizens worldwide.
“In May 2024, Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Chairman Brad Wenstrup released evidence that EcoHealth repeatedly violated the terms of its NIH grant. EcoHealth routinely ignored government oversight requests, failed to report dangerous gain-of-function experiments conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and produced a required research report two years late. HHS cited all of these discoveries as key reasons for formally debarring EcoHealth and Dr. Daszak. Given that a lab-related incident involving gain-of-function research is the most likely origin of COVID-19, EcoHealth and its former President should never again receive a single cent from the U.S. taxpayer.”
Question: Will the US create enormous liability if it is proven that the U.S. funded gain of function that lead to the lab leak in Wuhan
Yes, if it were conclusively proven that the U.S. government funded gain-of-function research that directly led to a lab-originated outbreak of SARS-CoV-2, several forms of liability—legal, financial, and geopolitical—could emerge, though each would face significant barriers:
1. International Legal Liability
Sovereign immunity largely shields the U.S. from being sued in foreign courts or international tribunals.
There is no standing international legal framework that would automatically hold the U.S. liable for pandemics caused by research collaborations unless there was a clear, deliberate violation of international law (e.g., bioweapons treaties).
China's role in such a scenario would complicate direct attribution, as both parties were involved in oversight and lab conduct.
2. Domestic Legal Exposure
U.S. federal agencies such as the NIH, NIAID (under Dr. Anthony Fauci), or USAID could face investigations and civil lawsuits, especially if it were shown they violated laws or withheld material information from Congress.
Whistleblower protections and FOIA lawsuits could increase dramatically.
However, the Federal Tort Claims Act and other sovereign immunity doctrines protect the U.S. government from most suits unless explicit exceptions are met.
3. Political and Reputational Fallout
Severe loss of public trust in U.S. health institutions and scientific leadership.
Congressional investigations and potential criminal referrals if laws were broken (e.g., falsifying grant oversight).
Potential calls for international reparations or sanctions, even if unenforceable.
4. Financial and Diplomatic Repercussions
Potential lawsuits or compensation demands from foreign citizens or governments, though these would mostly be symbolic unless backed by international coalitions.
Could jeopardize future scientific collaborations and increase scrutiny of U.S. research funding abroad.
Further fuels geopolitical tension with China, especially if both sides attempt to deflect blame.
Precedent:
The EcoHealth Alliance's NIH-funded work with the Wuhan Institute of Virology is at the center of this debate. Though the NIH denied it funded gain-of-function research, a 2021 letter from the NIH to Rep. James Comer admitted that EcoHealth failed to report potentially risky findings.
Can the US Mitigate This Liability
The U.S. government employs several strategies to mitigate legal and financial liability for gain-of-function (GoF) research it funds abroad, including controversial research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). If it's ever proven that U.S.-funded GoF research directly contributed to a lab leak, multiple legal, diplomatic, and procedural mechanisms would limit or complicate liability:
1. Contractual Disclaimers and Grant Terms
NIH and USAID grants to foreign institutions like WIV typically include liability waivers, requiring the grantee to assume responsibility for biosecurity and ethical compliance.
These contracts often state that the U.S. government is not liable for the outcomes of the research or the actions of the foreign entity.
2. Sovereign Immunity (U.S. and Chinese)
The U.S. government is protected by sovereign immunity, meaning it generally cannot be sued without its consent.
Similarly, the Chinese government shields WIV and associated parties from legal accountability via its own sovereign protections.
This mutual state immunity means international lawsuits face huge jurisdictional barriers.
3. Lack of International Legal Mechanism
There is no binding international legal framework to hold one state accountable for a foreign public health incident like a lab leak tied to government-funded research.
The Biological Weapons Convention prohibits offensive bio-research but is toothless in enforcement and doesn't cover negligence.
4. Delegated Funding via NGOs (e.g., EcoHealth Alliance)
U.S. agencies like the NIH/NIAID provided funds to EcoHealth Alliance, which in turn subcontracted with WIV.
This additional layer distances U.S. agencies from direct liability, allowing them to claim they didn’t control or conduct the research.
In investigations, NIH has argued that the research funded was not classified as “gain-of-function” under their definitions, further diluting responsibility.
5. Redefinition and Regulatory Gaps
U.S. oversight mechanisms (e.g., P3CO Framework) were often not applied or were inconsistently enforced, allowing agencies to argue that funded work didn't trigger high-level review.
The NIH and HHS redefined GoF research in ways that excluded certain types of coronavirus work, creating plausible deniability.
6. Diplomatic Considerations
Admitting fault could severely damage U.S.–China relations, trigger massive international claims, and undermine global biosecurity cooperation.
Thus, both nations have political incentives to avoid definitive attribution and liability.
Summary:
Even if it were proven that U.S.-funded gain-of-function research led to the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, direct U.S. legal liability is highly unlikely due to sovereign immunity, complex funding layers, lack of international legal authority, and strategic regulatory loopholes. However, political and reputational fallout could be substantial.