Trump Signs Executive Order Banning Federal Funds for Gain-of-Function Research
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Former President Donald Trump signed a sweeping executive order Monday that permanently bans federal funding for gain-of-function (GOF) research, a controversial form of experimentation that modifies viruses to increase their transmissibility or lethality. The move fulfills a long-standing pledge Trump made following the COVID-19 pandemic, which many conservatives believe stemmed from a Chinese lab engaged in such experiments.
“Under the Trump administration, the United States will not spend a single cent funding dangerous gain-of-function research,” the 45th president said in a press release. “We will shut it all down.”
According to the executive order, all federal agencies are prohibited from supporting GOF research both domestically and internationally — particularly in countries like China, where oversight is either insufficient or nonexistent. The directive also mandates a formal review of past government-funded experiments to determine if federal money was used to back high-risk biological research abroad.
The ban specifically targets any U.S. collaboration with research entities in nations “lacking adequate biosafety and transparency protocols,” a clear rebuke of China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology. The lab has long been at the center of allegations that COVID-19 may have escaped from its facilities, prompting global health disasters.
Trump’s executive order also establishes a new federal board to oversee all future research involving pathogens. This board, made up of military, public health, and national security experts, will be tasked with reviewing grant proposals and identifying research that could pose a threat to public safety.
“The American people deserve to know that their tax dollars are not being used to create Frankenstein-style superviruses,” Trump said during a public appearance after signing the order. “This is about protecting our citizens, not empowering rogue labs in hostile nations.”
The New York Post reported that the policy shift was influenced by extensive reviews of declassified intelligence, which suggested U.S. agencies funneled money through third parties to foreign labs conducting GOF work. One such partner, EcoHealth Alliance, had previously collaborated with the Wuhan lab through a National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant during the Obama and early Trump years.
Trump supporters have long maintained that such research never should have been funded in the first place. Critics of the NIH’s policies point to failures in accountability and oversight, especially concerning research conducted on foreign soil with little transparency.
As noted by Just The News, Trump characterized the executive order as part of a broader effort to “restore accountability and common sense” to government spending. The order comes as many Americans remain skeptical of official narratives surrounding the origins of COVID-19.
“Instead of investigating American citizens, the Biden administration should have been investigating Chinese labs and cutting off funding to dangerous research,” one Trump advisor said, underscoring frustration among conservatives that these policies weren’t enacted sooner.
Public trust in the scientific establishment has eroded sharply over the past five years, due in part to shifting explanations about the pandemic’s origins. Initial claims that COVID-19 came from a wet market in Wuhan have largely been discredited. Trump’s EO reaffirms what many on the right have argued since early 2020 — that risky lab experiments, combined with lax oversight in authoritarian countries, represent a national security threat.
Dr. Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist from Rutgers University, told Fox News that the ban is “a necessary step to reduce the risk of future pandemics.” He called the executive order “sound policy,” especially given the murky relationship between U.S. health agencies and foreign research entities.
The order also received support from other corners of the scientific community, with some researchers arguing that the risks of GOF research outweigh the theoretical benefits. Others, however, maintain that GOF experiments help prepare for emerging infectious diseases, a rationale critics say ignores the catastrophic consequences of accidental leaks.
For many conservatives, the announcement reflects a return to a common-sense America First approach to national policy — one that prioritizes safety over academic risk-taking or globalist science experiments.
The executive order further cements Trump’s contrast with President Biden, whose administration failed to enact any firm policies to restrict funding for GOF research. Biden officials, including former NIH leadership, had instead sought to defend the practice under the guise of “pandemic preparedness.”
The conservative base, including those who long questioned Dr. Anthony Fauci’s involvement with EcoHealth Alliance and Wuhan-based studies, has hailed the EO as a long-overdue correction. Many view the action as another example of Trump keeping his word and delivering on promises ignored by establishment politicians.
Trump warned that should Biden or another Democrat return to power in 2025, the policy could be reversed. “We need strong leadership that puts American lives first — not bureaucrats and global scientists playing with fire,” Trump said.
The executive order is expected to face challenges from scientific lobby groups and pro-GOF research institutions. However, with public sentiment largely skeptical of gain-of-function research, particularly after the pandemic, political resistance is likely to be limited outside far-left academic circles.
Trump’s decisive move sends a strong message — one that reflects the America First priorities of national sovereignty, safety, and responsibility with taxpayer dollars. In stark contrast to the ambiguous policies of the Biden era, the former president’s action marks a new chapter in how America confronts threats from both viruses and failed international partnerships.
Will the order remain permanent? That may depend on who sits in the Oval Office come January 2025.
Ella Ford