CMR is the leading provider of funding and management support for small to medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs 

Not long after Shenzhen-based Huawei unveiled what it described as a breakthrough pathway for advanced semiconductor production at the recent IEEE ISCAS conference, the Trump administration raised concerns that one of Dutch chip-equipment giant ASML's extreme ultraviolet lithography, or EUV, machines may have fallen into Chinese hands.

Bloomberg reports that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has raised concerns that one of ASML's EUV machines may have reached China despite US-led export controls.

ASML has pushed back on Lutnick's suggestion, explaining that none of its EUV machines, used to print the tiniest circuit patterns onto advanced computer chips, have ended up in the hands of the Chinese. This report is based on sources from the outlet who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe private conversations.

ASML says all 314 of its operating EUV machines are accounted for globally.

More color from the outlet:

Multiple senior administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity to describe a sensitive matter, said they have evidence indicating ASML is not acting in good faith — such as exports to China of gear specifically related to EUV tools, which ASML denied to Bloomberg. These US officials, who didn't comment on Lutnick's meetings with ASML, declined multiple requests from Bloomberg for proof of the shipments, citing the sensitivity of the information and sources. They also declined to say whether they have seen evidence of an actual EUV system in the Asian country.

The dispute adds pressure on ASML, with shares in Amsterdam trading down as much as 2% on Friday. Shares have advanced as much as 81% this year due to the AI and data center buildout narrative.

Here is Citi analyst Andrew Gardiner's first take on the US Government-ASML dispute:

According to Bloomberg (6/19), US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has told ASML of concerns that an EUV machine is in China, in contravention of regulations that prevent ASML from shipping EUV to China. No evidence for the claims was provided to journalists. ASML have reiterated publicly they have never shipped a machine or EUV parts to China. ASML can "see" each of the EUV tools running at customer fabs, as the machines send back data to ASML on their operations. ASML are now in the difficult position of trying to prove a negative, when no evidence is being furnished against their position. Given our time spent with ASML over the last two decades, including with current management in recent years, we find it very hard to believe that they would jeopardise their position in the industry, their reputation, or their technological leadership just to deliver an EUV tool to China.

Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Masahiro Wakasugi comments:

US concerns about Chinese chipmakers using advanced tools made by ASML might have little impact on its sales. Bloomberg News reports that in recent meetings, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick expressed the concerns to ASML's leaders, saying one of its top machines might have made its way into China, violating US-led restrictions. But ASML says it has never shipped extreme ultraviolet lithography systems to China and has complied with tightening restrictions on deep ultraviolet tools. Also, using ASML machines to make advanced chips would probably require sophisticated tools from other foreign firms that also face restrictions. China is increasingly able to make more-advanced chips with legacy tools, so the US concerns may reflect Chinese engineering progress rather than any lapse in ASML's compliance with export controls.

Related:

• Inside The Chip Chokepoint: Goldman's Five Key Takeaways From ASML Visit

US concerns may reflect China's progress in developing advanced chips, especially after Huawei's announcement last month of a potential breakthrough in semiconductor production.

Ukraine's massive drone swarm attack on the Russian capital, targeting critical energy infrastructure including a major refinery and storage tank farms, has sparked fuel-shortage fears in Moscow while prompting Russia to warn Kyiv of "massive group strikes" in retaliation.

On Thursday, 200 Ukrainian suicide drones swarmed Gazprom's Moscow Refinery in what military observers are calling Kyiv's most brazen offensive of the four-year war to date.

Footage from the southeastern outskirts of the city showed the drone swarm attack and the resulting columns of black smoke billowing from the heavily damaged refinery and storage tank farms.

Additional footage of Russia’s Moscow oil refinery ablaze this morning after a successful Ukrainian drone attack. pic.twitter.com/34c27d565q

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) June 18, 2026

HOLY SMOKES! Moscow right now ?????? pic.twitter.com/Oxz4pLHIwQ

— Kate from Kharkiv (@BohuslavskaKate) June 18, 2026

"It is no coincidence that the president announced some time ago, after yet another Kyiv terrorist attack, that we will now conduct massive group strikes on a regular basis against targets whose condition directly affects the combat readiness of the Ukrainian Armed Forces," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters yesterday, according to Interfax.

Ukraine's drone attack appears to have targeted Russia's refining capacity, as concerns grow that fuel shortages could soon materialize in the capital area.

Sergey Vakulenko, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia and Eurasia Center in Berlin and a former Russian oil executive, told Bloomberg that a gas shortage in Moscow is now unavoidable.

"The authorities will do everything they can to bring fuel in from other regions," Vakulenko said. "However, rail capacity is not unlimited, and nearby refineries have also been damaged."

Kyiv has been pounding away at Russia's energy infrastructure with drones. The latest data from EA Analytics indicates that Russian crude-processing rates are set to drop to two-decade lows in June.

Here's TD Securities Roman Schweizer's first take on the attack:

The G7 confab happened without any major blowups. The formal declaration is here. Notably, the group promised support for UKR and tougher sanction on RUS. "We commit to increase the pressure on the Russian war economy. In this context, we will strengthen our sanctions, including those on the oil and gas sectors. We consider this the right moment to proceed with additional measures, as President Trump has delivered a deal that we support in reopening the Strait of Hormuz." UKR continues to make incredibly effective long-range strikes into Moscow, spectacularly hitting a storage tank at an oil refinery. There is stunning footage of black smoke billowing over Moscow (generating both real and psychological effects). The war isn't going well for Putin either tactically or strategically. UKR has seized the momentum - the big question is what comes next: a diplomatic off-ramp or military escalation? We struggle to see how RUS could do something to change the battlefield dynamics and worry that a desperate Putin might try something desperate.

What Russia's "massive group strikes" response will look like remains to be seen, but the threat of gray-zone sabotage across the West is rising. That could include a campaign of cyberattacks, arson, logistics disruption, rail and port interference, telecom or undersea-cable incidents, and attacks against defense supply-chain nodes supporting Ukraine.

 Submitted by QTR's Fringe Finance

With bitcoin hovering near $65,000, down about 50% over the last year, the mood across crypto has become increasingly subdued lately.

For most of the 2020s, cryptocurrency transformed from a niche financial experiment into a major political issue. What began as a technology debate evolved into a cultural and ideological battleground, with Republicans increasingly positioning themselves as defenders of digital assets and free markets while Democrats often emphasized consumer protection, financial oversight, and regulatory scrutiny.

Aside from worrying about adoption, quantum computing and things like what would happen if Satoshi’s bitcoin ever moved, I see another major risk for bitcoin holders and crypto advocates that isn’t being talked about nearly as much as I think it should It’s not technological, macroeconomic or regulatory—at least not in the way most people think.

The real risk is political. And it starts with a simple question: What happens if Democrats come roaring back in 2026 and then win the White House in 2028?

For most of the decade, cryptocurrency has steadily moved from being a financial technology story to becoming a political identity. Republicans increasingly embraced crypto as a symbol of innovation, economic freedom, and resistance to government control. Democrats, meanwhile, have always positioned themselves as the party of oversight, consumer protection, and financial regulation. Elizabeth Warren is already foaming at the mouth over the SpaceX IPO.

Crypto bears nowadays argue that with the entire backing of the U.S. political apparatus, bitcoin has had trouble holding a price in the six figures. This must mean adoption has peaked. As Peter Schiff never misses an opportunity to remind bitcoin investors, if an asset can't stay above major price milestones after getting ETFs, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, half of X, and a crypto-friendly federal government cheering it on, maybe the problem isn't a lack of catalysts. Maybe the catalysts have already been spent.

In that case, most investors wouldn’t just be betting on bitcoin anymore. They’d be betting on a political environment that appears unusually favorable to crypto. The White House is openly supportive. Regulators have eased their tone. Congress is debating legislation that could provide long-awaited clarity for digital assets. Not surprisingly, capital flowed back into the sector in the first year of the Trump administration.

The entire crypto ecosystem has become increasingly intertwined with that political backdrop…and now our financial system.

Michael Saylor continues to use Strategy as a giant bitcoin acquisition vehicle despite growing questions about how some of the company’s securities are trading relative to their underlying economics.

Strategy is now trading at a discount to its estimated net asset value, while Saylor’s STRC preferred product recently closed around 91 cents on the dollar—nearly 10% below par. I wrote a warning about this product back in April while Michael Saylor was taking daily victory laps on X about how it kept closing at par. Those days are over.

As this is all occurring in the background, the broader message remains that crypto still has powerful political allies. And at a time where things already are looking shaky in crypto, that confidence may be setting up the industry’s next major vulnerability. Because if Democrats regain power, they are unlikely to view crypto through the same favorable lens.

So by 2028, cryptocurrency may no longer be viewed simply as an emerging technology sector or a new asset class. It could instead become one of the defining symbols of the Trump era itself. Trump family members, business entities, and individuals closely connected to the administration have reportedly generated more than $2 billion in crypto-related wealth “while more than a million investors lost the same amount on the other side of those trades”.

Chances are, Elizabeth Warren and her merry band of socialists aren’t going to be overjoyed about that. And political battles are often fought over narratives, symbols, and perceived abuses of power.

By the end of a second Trump term, many Democrats may see crypto not as a neutral technology but as a financial ecosystem deeply intertwined with the political movement they are trying to defeat.

That creates a potentially dangerous setup for investors. Democrats would not need to argue that bitcoin itself is inherently harmful or that blockchain technology lacks value. Instead, they could frame the industry as a vehicle for conflicts of interest, political favoritism, speculative excess, and extraordinary wealth creation among a relatively small group of well-connected insiders. That is a much easier argument to make, particularly to voters who do not own digital assets and are unlikely to lose sleep over the fortunes of stablecoin issuers, token promoters, crypto treasury companies, or billionaires who have amassed enormous wealth through the sector.

Every political era eventually produces a reaction, and the stronger the pendulum swings in one direction, the harder it often swings back. If Democrats conclude that the Trump years were characterized by excessive deregulation, blurred lines between public office and private business interests, and a speculative boom that disproportionately benefited insiders, financial markets could become a major target for reform. Crypto would almost certainly find itself near the top of that list.

The range of potential initiatives is broad. Lawmakers could pursue tougher disclosure requirements for elected officials and their families, expand insider trading enforcement, increase reporting obligations for large investors and corporate insiders, and devote greater resources to investigating market manipulation and politically connected investment vehicles. While those proposals might be presented as ethics reforms or good-governance measures, their practical impact could extend well beyond Washington and reshape how capital flows throughout financial markets.

Cryptocurrency would be exposed. A future Democratic administration could seek expanded SEC authority over digital assets, tougher anti-money-laundering standards, more aggressive know-your-customer requirements, stricter oversight of stablecoins, enhanced reporting obligations for exchanges and wallet providers, tighter rules governing token issuance, and new restrictions on decentralized finance platforms. Basically, the total opposite of what this administration is doing: pardoning various white collar criminals and exploiting the public markets for personal gain.

Congress could also revisit broader financial reforms that seem politically unrealistic today but could quickly gain momentum under a different political environment, including transaction taxes, stricter leverage limits, expanded beneficial ownership disclosures, enhanced monitoring of digital asset transactions, and greater scrutiny of corporate treasury strategies built around cryptocurrency holdings.

None of these measures would require banning bitcoin, and that is the point many investors miss. Governments do not need to prohibit an activity outright to change behavior. They simply need to increase compliance costs, reporting requirements, legal uncertainty, and regulatory complexity enough to make investors, institutions, and corporations think twice before committing capital. Markets are extraordinarily sensitive to incentives, and they are also forward-looking. By the time new rules are formally enacted, much of the repricing may have already occurred.

---

?? 50% OFF FOR LIFE: Using this coupon entitles you to 50% off an annual subscription to Fringe Finance for life: Get 50% off forever

---

If investors begin to believe that a decent Democratic performance in 2026 could happen, and a Democratic sweep is possible in 2028, they could think about how it may usher in a significantly tougher regulatory environment. And then, crypto prices may not wait for Election Day to react. Capital could begin adjusting months in advance. Investors would price in future restrictions, valuations would come under pressure, policymakers could point to declining prices as evidence that speculative excess is being wrung out of the system, and the resulting weakness could generate additional political support for further reforms. In that scenario, the expectation of regulation becomes nearly as powerful as regulation itself.

Supporters of such policies would insist that none of this constitutes a crackdown. They would argue that it represents a long-overdue return to accountability after years of meme speculation, regulatory arbitrage, and politically connected wealth creation. Critics would see something very different, calling it political retaliation disguised as financial reform. Both sides would undoubtedly believe they are acting in the public interest. Markets, however, tend to care less about motives than outcomes, and the outcome for crypto could be painful.

At the moment, most investors are focused elsewhere. They are watching bitcoin hover around $65,000. They are tracking ETF flows, following Michael Saylor’s latest purchases, and celebrating every headline that appears to confirm crypto’s growing acceptance within the American financial system. What they may not be watching closely enough is the possibility that the industry’s political victories are laying the groundwork for its future political vulnerability.

If Democrats retake Congress in 2026 and capture the White House in 2028, the debate surrounding cryptocurrency could change dramatically. The conversation may no longer revolve around adoption, innovation, or even bitcoin itself. Instead, it could become a broader referendum on the political and financial ecosystem that grew around crypto during the Trump years.

And if that happens, the next major crypto bear market lower from here may not begin with a recession, a bankruptcy, or a technological failure. It may begin with an election.

--

QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.

This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions.

As of May 20, 2026 I personally no longer actively trade (read my story here). My investing/saving is done by recurring contributions mostly to sector ETFs and a few select equities, trusted third parties who oversee my accounts, and advisors. Such advisors or funds, through individual equities, options, index funds, mutual funds, ETFs, or other securities, may have positions in, exposure to, or holdings of names mentioned herein that I know nothing about. Basically, via index funds, ETFs and individual equities it is possible I could own, have exposure to, or not own anything at any point. As of the same date, May 20, 2026, in an attempt to lead a healthier lifestyle, I’ve also excluded myself from fantasy sports, sports betting, online and in-person casinos and prediction markets.

And all positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. If you see numbers and calculations of any sort, assume they are wrong and double check them. I failed Algebra in 8th grade and topped off my high school math accolades by getting a D- in remedial Calculus my senior year, before becoming an English major in college so I could bullshit my way through things easier.

The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.

Authored by Dorothy Li via The Epoch Times,

U.S. senators have voiced support for ordinary Chinese people and denounced communist regime leader Xi Jinping for lying to Americans and committing human rights abuses.

The U.S. Senate unanimously approved on June 16 by voice vote a resolution (Senate Resolution 444) condemning Xi for “deceit, undermining prospects for peace and security, and orchestrating crimes against humanity.”

The resolution also encourages the U.S. government and its agencies to use all available tools—including the authorities under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, which allow sanctions against individuals responsible for serious human rights violations or corruption—to hold Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials accountable.

The vote came just a day after Xi’s 73rd birthday.

“There is no greater threat to America’s way of life, peace, and prosperity in the world than Xi Jinping and the CCP,” Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who introduced the resolution earlier this month, told the Senate before the vote.

“Xi Jinping hates us. Communist China wants to destroy us. He is not a partner. He is not a competitor. He is a brutal dictator leading a criminal organization that lies, cheats, steals, exploits slave labor, and commits genocide and crimes against humanity on an industrial scale.”

Under Xi’s leadership, the CCP covered up the COVID-19 outbreak after it first emerged in the central Chinese city of Wuhan in late 2019, allowing it to develop into a global pandemic.

The resolution notes that the CCP lied to the world about where the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes COVID-19, originated and how easily it was transmitted, while using international organizations such as the World Health Organization to “peddle falsehoods.”

As a result of these deceptions, more than 1 million people died from COVID-19 in the United States alone, according to the resolution.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) speaks during the Conservative Political Action Conference in Grapevine, Texas, on March 28, 2026. Leandro Lozada/AFP via Getty Images

In addition to the global pandemic, the resolution also highlights the CCP’s role in the fentanyl crisis in the United States.

Xi pledged, in 2019 and again in 2023, to work more closely with the U.S. government to curb the flow of fentanyl precursors from the country. Despite these promises, more than 70,000 Americans died from fentanyl overdoses in recent years, with the 2025 National Drug Threat Assessment identifying fentanyl and other synthetic drugs as the “primary drivers of fatal drug overdose deaths nationwide,” the resolution stated.

On the trade front, Xi “doubled down” on the CCP’s decades-long “tradition of cheating,” the resolution stated.

When the Clinton administration sponsored China’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, the CCP promised to transition to a more market-oriented economy, including reducing state control of trade and protecting intellectual property.

However, after more than 25 years, the CCP still “fails to uphold many” of those promises and continues to violate WTO obligations, the resolution stated.

Espionage and cyberattacks have also surged, according to the resolution. In 2017, for instance, four Chinese military-backed hackers carried out a cyberattack against the U.S. credit company Equifax and stole the personal information of about 145 million Americans, according to the FBI.

More than 60 espionage cases linked to the CCP were documented in 20 U.S. states from February 2021 to December 2024, according to the resolution.

Among these was a naturalized U.S. citizen who, in December 2024, pleaded guilty to conspiring to act as an agent of the Chinese regime in relation to running a secret Chinese police station in New York City.

The resolution cites the CCP’s records of human rights violations, including the massacre of student-led protesters demanding political reform and greater freedom at Beijing’s Tiananmen Square in June 1989.

Even 36 years later, the bloody repression continues to serve as a “stark reminder of the sheer evil and cowardice” of the CCP and its inability to quash the aspirations of the Chinese people, according to the resolution.

It also highlights the regime’s ongoing abuses, such as the state-sanctioned practice of killing prisoners of conscience—most notably Falun Gong practitioners—for organs.

U.S. President Donald Trump has said that he spoke directly with Xi about releasing Lai during his recent visit to Beijing, but that Xi called Lai’s case “a tougher one” for him.

Scott, in a June 16 statement, called for courage and action.

“The CCP, especially under Xi Jinping’s tyranny, has a particular brand of evil,” Scott said in a statement. “They seek to control the world, and in their mind, that means destroying anyone who stands in their way—whether it’s their own people or not.

“We cannot be afraid to stand up to our enemies and hold the line for the next generation of Americans.”

Update: the Yo-Yo insanity that is the on again, off again Iran war. Moments after we reported that futures and global risk assets had sold off overnight on a delay to today's start of peace talks in Switzerland due to Iran's protest of ongoing violence in Lebanon, moments ago Reuters reported that Israel and Hezbollah have ?agreed to a ?ceasefire set to begin at 4 ?p.m. local time ?on Friday, citing a senior US official ?

“Hezbollah and ?Israel have agreed to a ceasefire,” the official ?said on ?background, adding that negotiators for ?the ?U.S. and Qataris worked out the deal with ?help from ?Iran. “We ?understand that after the ?exchange of fire ?earlier ?today, Israel and Hezbollah are ?now ?in a ?ceasefire.”

The report was confirmed by an Israeli official speaking to the Jerusalem Post: "We have entered a ceasefire. We will continue to act against threats and will remain in the Strip. If Hezbollah harms our soldiers or civilians, we will respond forcefully".

In kneejerk reaction, S&P futures which were down 0.4% erased half their losses...

... while oil dropped from session highs.

And now we wait the inevitable next reversal of this neverending newsflow yoyo.

* * * 

Earlier: 

With US markets closed for the Juneteenth holiday, global stocks are ending a strong week on a cautious note as the recent relief over an interim peace deal between the US and Iran gave way to a focus on the challenges of securing a lasting agreement. As of 8:30am, S&P 500 futures slid 0.4% after the benchmark posted its best week since the end of May (despite the drop, the S&P is still up on the week, and up 11 of the past 12). Europe’s Stoxx 600 was little changed, while Asian stocks retreated 0.4% from an all-time high. Markets in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan were shut as well.

Brent crude rebounded from the lowest price since the start of the war, and fluctuated near $80 a barrel as traffic through the Strait of Hormuz appeared to thin on Friday, just a day after a pledge by the US and Iran to lift a dual blockage prompted a burst in oil flows.

Precious metals, which had already dropped ahead of the overnight escalation, extended losses with gold dropping to the mid-$4100s.

Talks on a permanent deal between Washington and Tehran that were meant to be held in Switzerland on Friday have been delayed, after Israel and Iran-backed Hezbollah militants clashed overnight in Lebanon, a development the Financial Times reported was behind the postponement. Iran has made a truce in Lebanon a condition of its preliminary deal with the US. At the same time, the White House announced late on Thursday that Vance would not be traveling to the talks and said the logistics had not been "simple or predictable".

The latest snafu comes a day after the US dropped its naval blockade of Iran after the two countries signed a deal aimed at ending the conflict.

“Of course, with Trump there can always be some derailment along the way, but we believe that we’re set into a new phase of de-escalation,” said Alexandre Drabowicz at Indosuez Wealth Management. “There are 60 planned days of negotiations,” he said, advising investors not to rush to conclusions about a permanent deal.

Meanwhile in the UK, gilts led a rise in European bond yields after Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham won a seat in Parliament, handing him a pathway to challenge Prime Minister Keir Starmer for his job. Investors are debating whether a Burnham premiership might shift to a looser fiscal policy (spoiler alert: yes).

In rates, the pound outperformed most major currencies, while the dollar held at its highest level since March. Bitcoin fell for a fourth consecutive day. 

Despite today's hiccup, global markets are wrapped in a debt-funded AI euphoria: stocks are closing a pivotal week marked by the US-Iran interim deal, Fed Chair Kevin Warsh’s first policy meeting and the early days of SpaceX as a public company. Stocks have shown unprecedented resilience, buoyed by the frenzy around artificial intelligence and the billions of debt dollars funding it on the assumption that cheaper Chinese alternatives will not be able to dethrone expensive, token-sucking US incumbents.

Strategists surveyed by Bloomberg have raised their S&P 500 year-end targets from a month ago as Iran war disruptions eased and the earnings outlook improved. The average target climbed to 7,716 from 7,612 in May. That’s almost 3% higher than the last close and implies a near 13% gain for the year. Earnings estimates also increased for this year and next.

“Markets seem to be entering a rare couple of weeks with no major catalysts ahead,” said Roberto Scholtes, head of strategy at Singular Bank. “Hopefully, this is a chance to take a breather after a hectic year, and possibly also a period of sector rotation.”

Newly declassified documents released Thursday by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard show that a U.S. national laboratory assessed the COVID-19 lab-origin hypothesis as a serious possibility as early as May 2020, as well as evidence of U.S.-funded coronavirus research that included planning for spike-protein modifications, receptor-adaptation experiments, and testing in humanized mice in collaboration with researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

The documents also prove that Anthony Fauci lied under oath. 

Today, on my final day as Director of National Intelligence, I’m releasing never-before-seen communications and documents exposing how Dr. Fauci provided millions in US taxpayer dollars to fund dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab, worked with politicized elements… pic.twitter.com/ZMdliW4zyS

— DNI Tulsi Gabbard (@DNIGabbard) June 19, 2026

The release, issued on Gabbard’s last day on the job, includes an eight-page May 27, 2020, assessment from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s Z Program. That assessment concluded that “all of the necessary conditions for an accidental release of a laboratory-modified coronavirus - specifically a coronavirus adapted to recognize human cell receptors - were present at the Chinese Wuhan Institute of Virology in mid-to-late 2019.” It assigned equal weight to a laboratory-modification hypothesis and a natural-origin scenario.

Meanwhile, Recall that while the government was locking us down, Dr. Anthony Fauci and those in his orbit were actively fabricating a 'wet market' narrative that would conceal US research as a possible origin - despite his own advisors initially insisting that COVID-19 looked manmade.

In his January 2024 transcribed interview, Fauci was asked about conversations concerning the same three topics - COVID origins, WIV, and EcoHealth. When asked about the CIA, he answered yes: he said he was briefed “once or twice” in a secure NIH facility and also recalled a briefing in a White House situation room.

The newly released documents then show a June 4, 2021 briefing involving CIA/WCP personnel, NSC officials, and Fauci, during which Fauci offered views on pangolin research, sick WIV researchers, single-lineage vs. multi-lineage evidence, and recommended scientists for the IC to contact. A separate CIA-context email says that same 40-minute secure video teleconfrenece involved CIA/WCPMC officials and that Fauci gave thoughts on the 4 May 2021 COVID-origin briefing and recommended U.S. scientists to consult.

So, he lied. 

According to a statement released with the files, "Fauci worked with politicized career leadership in the Intelligence Community (IC) to suppress the truth about his actions, the virus’ lab-leak origins, and his role in directing U.S. funding for this dangerous research that caused immeasurable harm and countless lost lives. These documents expose Fauci’s direct role in influencing and manipulating IC assessments on COVID-19, and how Fauci lied to Congress in 2024, when under oath he denied knowledge of or participation in discussions with intelligence officials about viral research."

U.S.-Funded Research and Planning for Coronavirus Manipulation

The files include the Year 5 progress report for EcoHealth Alliance’s NIH grant 5R01AI110964-05. Under Specific Aim 3, the project outlined plans to:

• Sequence spike genes from bat coronaviruses.
• Create mutants to assess how much further evolution would be needed for efficient use of human ACE2 or other receptors.
• Conduct receptor-mutant pseudovirus binding assays.
• Perform infection experiments in cell lines and humanized mice.

This research track overlaps with work described in the 2018 DEFUSE proposal, which involved EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak, Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina, and Shi Zhengli’s team at WIV. The proposal sought to create chimeric bat coronaviruses with enhanced human infectivity, including consideration of furin cleavage site insertion to improve lung-cell entry, and to test the resulting viruses in humanized mice originally developed in Baric’s lab.

A 2016 WIV paper included in the release describes a synthetic shuttle vector system for assembling large DNA fragments, with demonstrated capability up to 31 kilobases. The authors presented the method as a tool for “genome-scale DNA reconstruction,” a technique relevant to synthetic biology and virus engineering.

Surveillance work under the same NIH grant reported that 9 of 1,497 rural residents in southern China (0.6%) were seropositive for bat SARS-related or HKU10 coronaviruses.

And from leaked emails three years ago:

Among other things, the NIH helped fund experiments at WIV that infected genetically engineered mice with “chimeric” hybrids of SARS-related bat coronaviruses in what some scientists have described as unacceptably risky research. 

...

Andersen laid them out plainly in an email to Fauci that same evening. “The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered,” Andersen wrote in the email. “I should mention,” he added, “that after discussions earlier today, Eddie, Bob, Mike and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory. But we have to look at this much more closely and there are still further analyses to be done, so those opinions could still change.” -The Intercept

Internal Discussions and Awareness of Manipulation Research

A June 8, 2021, internal email in the release references a 2016 New York Academy of Medicine meeting at which Peter Daszak reportedly discussed colleagues in China “manipulating the spike protein on coronavirus to make them more virulent.”

Other 2020–2021 emails show officials debating technical concerns, including references to a DOD report on a “suspicious added furin-site” and FBI reporting containing unusual genetic descriptions. One analyst noted the risk that non-experts could misinterpret technical data while still calling for scrutiny. Another observed that “the IC took direction straight from NIH… the people that funded the Wuhan Lab” and referenced “a complex web of money and politics influencing analysis.”

Picking Their Reviewer

July 2021 emails concerning the selection of outside reviewers for COVID-origin assessments show officials rejecting several candidates for political sensitivity or conflict-of-interest reasons:

• James Clapper was viewed as too politically “hot.”
• Anthony Fauci was flagged due to his position as a “customer” of the assessment through NIH funding ties.
• Michael Morell was considered “too public.”
• Sue Gordon and another individual identified only as “Beth” were also set aside.

And so... 

These materials provide primary-source documentation that a U.S. national laboratory assessed a laboratory origin as equally plausible to natural emergence at a time when prominent scientific publications were publicly emphasizing a natural zoonotic source and characterizing alternative hypotheses as conspiracy theories. This includes the February 2020 Lancet letter and the March 2020 Nature Medicine paper “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2”, along with subsequent amplification by NIH leadership.

The research details in the declassified grant reports and proposals involved techniques and modifications - spike-protein engineering, receptor adaptation, humanized-mouse testing, and consideration of furin cleavage sites - that later featured prominently in scientific debate over SARS-CoV-2’s characteristics.