A federal agency tasked with defending America is now being hauled into court for refusing to turn over records about high-risk virus research that may have been in motion before COVID-19 ever surfaced.
Quick Take
- Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit against the Department of Defense after the agency allegedly failed to respond to a records request submitted on November 7, 2025.
- The request seeks biodefense and gain-of-function funding proposals submitted to DARPA’s Biological Technologies Office prior to December 2019.
- The dispute centers on transparency around pre-pandemic research pipelines, including the “DEFUSE” proposal tied to EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
- The case is pending in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., under Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Defense (No. 1:26-cv-00433).
DoD FOIA Lawsuit Targets Pre-2019 DARPA Biodefense Proposals
Judicial Watch, a conservative government accountability group, filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Defense after seeking records it says were not produced in response to a November 7, 2025 request. The FOIA request asks for all biodefense and gain-of-function funding proposals submitted to DARPA’s Biological Technologies Office before December 2019. The suit was filed in early March 2026 in federal court in Washington, D.C.
The targeted office matters because DARPA’s Biological Technologies Office, launched in 2014, sits at the intersection of cutting-edge biotech and national security. In plain terms, that is where taxpayers can end up funding projects designed to anticipate, model, or even alter pathogens for defensive purposes. When the government refuses to disclose what it funded—or considered funding—public oversight breaks down, and the risk-management conversation becomes impossible to verify independently.
Why “Gain-of-Function” Records Still Matter After the Pandemic
Gain-of-function research generally refers to experiments that can enhance a pathogen’s transmissibility or virulence, often justified as preparation for future threats. U.S. policy has wrestled with these risks for years, including a past federal funding pause from 2014 to 2017. Judicial Watch’s lawsuit lands in the middle of an ongoing national debate: whether government-backed research programs created avoidable dangers, and whether agencies are being candid about what they knew and when.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the organization believes gain-of-function proposals were likely active before the pandemic and that the lawsuit aims to uncover what those proposals contained. That framing is significant for conservatives who watched Washington’s pandemic decision-making become a one-way ratchet—more power for bureaucracies, fewer answers for the public. The available reporting does not include the Defense Department’s explanation for the lack of response, so the underlying reasons remain unverified in public.
DEFUSE Proposal and Claims of Broad Federal Awareness
The lawsuit’s context includes the 2018 “DEFUSE” proposal, described in reporting as a plan involving EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Institute of Virology to engineer chimeric viruses resembling SARS-CoV-2. The reporting also states the proposal sought U.S. funding and was rejected, yet multiple agencies were said to have been aware of it. Senator Rand Paul has publicly pressed agencies about how widely the proposal was known, including correspondence in 2024.
The factual limits here matter: the public record described in the provided research indicates awareness claims and oversight questions, but it does not provide the underlying interagency documents, nor does it prove what internal assessments concluded. That is precisely why a FOIA fight over pre-December 2019 proposals is consequential. Without the paperwork—submission materials, reviews, internal correspondence, and funding pathways—Americans are left with narratives instead of evidence.
What the Court Fight Means for Transparency and Constitutional Governance
FOIA compliance is not a culture-war sideshow; it is part of how citizens restrain a permanent bureaucracy. When agencies can slow-walk or ignore requests involving sensitive programs, the practical effect is government by secrecy—especially troubling when programs touch biosecurity, public health, and defense. The pandemic era showed how quickly “expert” institutions can demand obedience while withholding basic facts. Conservatives are right to see transparency as a prerequisite for restoring trust.
Legal watchdog Judicial Watch sues Department of Defense for gain-of-function records https://t.co/UMzhZqgvMt
— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) March 7, 2026
For now, the lawsuit’s outcome will determine whether the Defense Department must search for and produce the requested records, or whether exemptions and litigation delays keep them out of reach. The reporting also notes minor date variance in public announcements about when the suit was filed in early March 2026. Until the court process forces disclosures—or confirms lawful withholding—key questions about the pre-pandemic gain-of-function pipeline will remain unresolved.
Sources:
Legal watchdog Judicial Watch sues Department of Defense for gain-of-function records
Judicial Watch sues for gain-of-function records
