From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Emily Kopp

President Donald Trump could sign a sweeping executive order banning gain-of-function research — research that makes viruses more dangerous in the lab — as soon as May 6, according to a source who has worked with the National Security Council on the issue.

The executive order will take a broad strokes approach, banning research amplifying the infectivity or pathogenicity of any virulent and replicable pathogen, according to the source, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about the anticipated executive action. But significant unresolved issues remain, according to the source, including whether violators will be subject to criminal penalties as bioweaponeers.

The executive order is being steered by Gerald Parker, head of the White House Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy, which has been incorporated into the NSC. Parker did not respond to requests for comment.

In the process of drafting the executive order, Parker has frozen out the federal agencies that have for years championed gain-of-function research and staved off regulation — chiefly Anthony Fauci’s former institute, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health.

The latest policy guidance on gain-of-function research, unveiled under the Biden administration in 2024, was previously expected to go into effect May 6. According to a March 25 letter cosigned by the American Society for Microbiology, the Association for Biosafety and Biosecurity International, and Council on Governmental Relations, organizations that conduct pathogen research have not received direction from the NIH on that guidance — suggesting the executive order would supersede the May 6 deadline.

The 2024 guidance altered the scope of experiments subject to more rigorous review, but charged researchers, universities and funding agencies like NIH with its implementation, which critics say disincentivizes reporting. Many scientists say that researchers and NIH should not be the primary entities conducting cost–benefit analyses of pandemic virus studies. 

Parker previously served as the head of the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB), a group of outside experts that advises NIH on biosecurity matters, and in that role recommended that Congress stand up a new government agency to advise on gain-of-function research. Former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield has also endorsed moving gain-of-function research decision making out of the NIH to an independent commission.

“Given the well documented lapses in the NIH review process, policymakers should … remove final approval of any gain-of function research grants from NIH,” Redfield said in a February op-ed.

It remains to be seen whether the executive order will articulate carveouts for gain-of-function research without risks of harm such as research on non-replicative pseudoviruses, which can be used to study viral evolution without generating pandemic viruses.

It also remains to be seen whether the executive order will define “gain-of-function research” tightly enough to stand up to legal scrutiny should a violator be charged with a crime.

Risky research on coronaviruses funded by the NIH at the Wuhan Institute of Virology through the U.S. nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance typifies the loopholes in NIH’s existing regulatory framework, some biosecurity experts say.

Documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act in 2023 indicated that EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak submitted a proposal to the Pentagon in 2018 called “DEFUSE” describing gain-of-function experiments on viruses similar to SARS-CoV-2 but downplayed to his intended funder the fact that many of the tests would occur in Wuhan, China.

Daszak and EcoHealth were both debarred from federal funding in January 2025 but have faced no criminal charges.

“I don’t know that criminal penalties are necessary. But we do need more sticks in biosafety as well as carrots,” said a biosecurity expert who requested anonymity to avoid retribution from his employer for weighing in on the expected policy. “For instance, biosafety should be a part of tenure review and whether you get funding for future work.”

Some experts say that it is likely that the COVID-19 crisis was a lab-generated pandemic, and that without major policy changes it might not be the last one.

“Gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens caused the COVID-19 pandemic, killing 20 million and costing $25 trillion,” said Richard Ebright, a Rutgers University microbiologist and longtime critic of high-risk virology, to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “If not stopped, gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens likely will cause future lab-generated pandemics.”

From LifeSiteNews

By Andreas Wailzer

The WHO draft ‘pandemic accord’ includes data sharing between governments and pharmaceutical companies to develop ‘pandemic-related health products,’ though it would not apply to the US.

Representatives of WHO member states have agreed on a draft of the “pandemic accord” that is scheduled to be voted on next month.

“The nations of the world made history in Geneva today,” Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the WHO, said after the member states agreed on the draft of the pandemic treaty on Wednesday.

“In reaching consensus on the Pandemic Agreement, not only did they put in place a generational accord to make the world safer, they have also demonstrated that multilateralism is alive and well, and that in our divided world, nations can still work together to find common ground, and a shared response to shared threats. I thank WHO’s Member States, and their negotiating teams, for their foresight, commitment and tireless work. We look forward to the World Health Assembly’s consideration of the agreement and – we hope – its adoption,” the WHO leader continued.

The agreement was reached by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB), the committee set up by the WHO to negotiate the treaty, after more than three years of negotiations.

According to the WHO’s press release, the core pandemic treaty draft includes the establishment of “a pathogen access and benefit sharing system,” allowing the sharing of data between governments and pharmaceutical companies aimed at quickly developing and supplying “pandemic-related health products” during a pandemic. These “health products” could be dangerous mRNA injections, similar to those rolled out and imposed on large parts of the world population during the COVID-19 crisis.

The WHO claims that the “proposal affirms the sovereignty of countries to address public health matters within their borders, and provides that nothing in the draft agreement shall be interpreted as providing WHO any authority to direct, order, alter or prescribe national laws or policies, or mandate States to take specific actions, such as ban or accept travellers, impose vaccination mandates or therapeutic or diagnostic measures or implement lockdowns.”

The WHO seems to be responding to critics of the Pandemic Treaty, who have argued it is a power grab by the WHO. It would give the global organization unchecked power whenever it declares that any health risk is a “pandemic.” However, the new draft has not yet been made public, making a thorough assessment impossible.

WHO director-general Ghebreyesus engaged in his typical fear-mongering, stating, “Virus is the worst enemy. (It) could be worse than a war.”

READ: WHO director Tedros calls for ‘more aggressive’ action against COVID shot critics

While the WHO pandemic treaty and the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) failed to pass last year, the new version of the agreement could be passed by a two-thirds majority at the annual World Health Assembly (May 19-27, 2025) next month.

However, the U.S. was not part of the negotiations and would not be bound by the agreement since President Donald Trump withdrew the country from the international body in January 2025 after taking office for his second term. Argentine President Javier Milei announced in February that his country will also leave the WHO, following Trump’s example. If more countries were to leave the WHO, the pandemic agreement could be ineffective in practice, even if it were to pass in May.