Is the Trump administration dropping the ball on a critical biosafety promise? Over eight weeks have passed since a crucial deadline, and the federal government has yet to roll out new policies banning risky gain-of-function (GOF) research, despite a clear executive order issued in May 2025, as the Daily Caller reports.

The issue at hand is straightforward: a mandate to curb lab-made pandemic viruses through strict federal oversight has been stalled, leaving experts worried and assurances from health officials sounding hollow.

Let’s rewind to May, when an executive order demanded that multi-agency leaders craft new GOF research policies within 120 days, targeting a completion date of Sept. 2. That deadline came and went, and even accounting for weekends and holidays, the administration is more than two months late. A government shutdown caused by budget disputes on Capitol Hill didn’t help, but it only kicked in a full month after the missed mark.

Deadline missed as concerns mount

Now, whispers of internal dysfunction are growing louder. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has repeatedly claimed that an NIH-Wuhan Institute collaboration sparked COVID-19 -- a theory many at NIH reject outright.

Meanwhile, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya’s inconsistent stance on GOF research, coupled with his defense of controversial advisors, raises eyebrows about his commitment to real change.

History adds fuel to the fire. Back in 2016, NIH officials wrested control of GOF regulation from the White House, pushing a lax policy that greenlit projects with minimal scrutiny -- including experiments in Wuhan, China, with barely a national security check beyond a supportive letter from a university virologist.

Emails uncovered this year reveal just how little deliberation went into those decisions, with meetings even canceled for lack of urgency.

Fast forward to today, and the same troubling patterns seem to linger. Two officials tied to the pre-COVID policy, which funneled funds to Wuhan, are now drafting the current administration’s rules, according to insider emails shared with the Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF). If that doesn’t scream conflict of interest, what does?

Insiders, experts sound alarm

Even the language of the May executive order is under fire for being too vague, handing excessive power to agency heads like those at NIH. Some biosafety experts fear this ambiguity could undermine enforcement, which might include a five-year grant ban -- only half the maximum debarment period HHS could impose. It’s a slap on the wrist when the stakes are global pandemics.

Adding to the chaos, Gerald Parker, who spearheaded the executive order draft as head of the White House’s Office of Pandemic Preparedness, stepped down this summer for personal reasons.

His exit, confirmed to DCNF, leaves a leadership gap at a critical time. Meanwhile, HHS has axed a biosecurity office, consolidating power under NIH’s Lyric Jorgenson, who previously shaped a GOF policy under the prior administration that Bhattacharya himself criticized.

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) isn’t offering clarity either, having dodged requests for comment. They’ve brought on Anna Puglisi, a counterintelligence expert focused on China’s biotech defiance, but she’s stayed silent on outreach attempts via LinkedIn. It’s a deafening quiet from an administration that promised action.

Voices of urgency amid policy delays

Speaking of promises, Bhattacharya boldly declared at the May signing ceremony that the new rules would “make it go away forever.” Nice soundbite, but where’s the follow-through when over two months of delay suggest otherwise? This isn’t just bureaucracy -- it’s a public safety gamble.

Experts aren’t mincing words on the risks. “The atom has been split in biology with COVID, but nobody seems to be talking about it with urgency,” warned Sean Kaufman, CEO of biosafety consulting firm Safer Behaviors, in a statement to DCNF. That’s a chilling reminder of what’s at stake when lab experiments can unleash global catastrophes.

Then there’s the murky legacy of NIH’s past leadership, including figures like Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins, who in 2016 lobbied to weaken White House oversight of GOF projects. Their efforts ensured a toothless policy where secretive HHS committees couldn’t even block dangerous research, as later reported by the Washington Post. That history looms large over today’s delays.

Can oversight catch up to risk?

Current NIH moves don’t inspire confidence, with Bhattacharya backing Jeffrey Taubenberger as Acting Director of NIAID despite his long advocacy for GOF research. After a DCNF report exposed another pro-GOF advisor, NIH fired two others, per social media posts on X, but the status of the initial advisor remains unclear. It’s a half-measure at best.

The May order itself softened an earlier, tougher version that called for an immediate, permanent ban on such research, as DCNF reported. Why the retreat from a hardline stance when the public’s trust -- and safety -- hang in the balance? It’s a question that deserves an answer, not stonewalling from HHS and the White House.

Ultimately, this isn’t about partisan point-scoring; it’s about protecting humanity from the next lab-born disaster. The Trump administration has a chance to prove it prioritizes biosafety over bureaucratic inertia or agency infighting. But with each passing week, that chance slips further away, and the clock is ticking louder than ever.