Trump Slashes Funding For Coronavirus Study Tangled Up In Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory

President Donald Trump speaks to reporters following a meeting of his coronavirus task force in the Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House on April 6, 2020. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) under the Trump administration pulled funding from a study last Friday on bat-human disease transmission that would help scientists understand the origin of coronaviruses, including COVID-19.

Politico reported on Monday that Michael Lauer, the deputy director for extramural research at the NIH, had told the study’s sponsors at EcoHealth Alliance via email that the agency would no longer fund the project, nor was the EcoHealth Alliance permitted to use what was left of the its 2020 grant.

“At this time, NIH does not believe that the current project outcomes align with the program goals and agency priorities,” Lauer wrote.

The EcoHealth Alliance told Politico that the research group was “planning to talk with NIH to understand the rationale behind their decision” as the COVID-19 outbreak rapidly spreads across the world.

“We work in the United States and in over 25 countries with institutions that have been pre-approved by federal funding agencies to do scientific research critical to preventing pandemics,” the EcoHealth Alliance said.

President Donald Trump’s GOP allies and several Fox News personalities have peddled an unproven conspiracy theory that claims COVID-19 originated from a research facility in Wuhan, China and then escaped the lab, causing the pandemic.

Part of the conspiracy theory alleges that the EcoHealth Alliance gave some of its funding to the Wuhan lab, a narrative Lauer cited in his email correspondence with the researchers conducting the bat study.

In one of the emails obtained by Politico, Lauer had told the researchers last week that NIH officials “need to know all sites in China that have been in any way linked to” funding for the study.

“It would be helpful for us to know about all China-based participants in this work since the Type 1 grant started in 2014 — who they were and how much money they received,” Lauer wrote in another email. “The sooner you can get us that information, the better.”

Pete Daszak, the president of the EcoHealth Alliance, told the NIH deputy director, “I can categorically state that no fund from [the grant] have been sent to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, nor has any contract been signed.”

Latest News

Notable Replies

  1. I’m confused. The Trump NIH pulled funding from an independent research project who would not rubber stamp his conspiracy theories? Is that the gist of this?

  2. Do Trump and allies ever have anything proven?

  3. If I understand this correctly, NIH has cut funding into the research of the origin of COVID-19 in the fear of them finding that there was a natural origin, rather than from a Chinese lab. This is a typical Repuke response to scientific research, they don’t like it when it conflicts with the reality in their perverted minds. Laurer’s time at NIH predates Trump so I have to assume the decision was not made by him but came from a higher level.

  4. Can’t make China the enemy if the disease was not created by them. I am surprised he’s not claiming it’s biological warfare, although it’s only April.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

175 more replies

Participants

Avatar for richardinjax Avatar for jw1 Avatar for cervantes Avatar for trnc Avatar for tamdai Avatar for ralph_vonholst Avatar for lastroth Avatar for alyoshakaramazov1 Avatar for left_in_washington_state Avatar for theghostofeustacetilley Avatar for esva Avatar for ronbyers Avatar for darrtown Avatar for henk Avatar for tsp Avatar for edhedh Avatar for castor_troy Avatar for greysea Avatar for the_loan_arranger Avatar for skeptical Avatar for rascal_crone Avatar for emiliano4 Avatar for Paracelsus Avatar for mnnmnnm

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: