What’s the Truth About Trump’s Gain-of-Function Ban? By Mrs (Dr) Abigail Knight (Florida)
Let's cut through the internet noise and get to the truth about President Trump's gain-of-function (GOF) research ban, as outlined in the May 2025 executive order, and whether the Vigilant Fox report, claiming it's a deceptive half-measure that "codifies" GOF and mRNA tech, is on the mark.
The executive order, signed in May 2025, was trumpeted as a bold move to curb dangerous GOF research, the kind of lab work that tweaks pathogens to make them deadlier or more transmissible, potentially linked to Covid's origins.
The order bans federal funding for "dangerous gain-of-function research" on biological agents in "countries or with entities of concern" (e.g. adversarial nations like China). It defines GOF narrowly as research that increases a pathogen's transmissibility or virulence in ways that could spark pandemics. It also calls for revising the 2024 Framework for Nucleic Acid Synthesis Screening to ensure "commonsense" oversight of synthetic DNA/RNA, expanding oversight to private labs, and updating regulations every four years.
No U.S. taxpayer dollars can go to GOF in hostile countries. This targets labs like the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which got NIH grants pre-Covid. It only applies to funding such experiments in hostile countries.
The order doesn't ban GOF research in the U.S. Instead, it directs agencies to develop "comprehensive, scalable, and verifiable" frameworks to manage it, including non-federally funded work. This implies GOF can continue domestically under stricter rules.
Section 4(b) pushes for broader screening of synthetic nucleic acids (used in mRNA vaccines and GOF experiments), with language about "widespread adoption" and scalability. There's no pause or ethical review, just infrastructure to keep the tech rolling.
Despite the fanfare, the order doesn't outlaw GOF research outright. Domestic labs, including private ones, can still do it if they follow new regulations. Attorney Tom Renz, quoted in the Vigilant Fox report, calls this "codifying" GOF, arguing it legitimises the practice under a regulatory veneer.
The order doesn't restrict mRNA tech (like in Covid vaccines). Instead, it streamlines its oversight, which some, like Renz, see as entrenching it. There's no mention of halting risky experiments for moral or safety reviews, unlike what some hoped for given Covid's fallout.
The Vigilant Fox piece, penned by a "pro-freedom citizen journalist" with a healthcare background, claims Trump's GOF ban is a bait-and-switch: it sounds tough but quietly protects domestic GOF and mRNA tech while limiting only foreign funding.
The executive order explicitly cuts funding for GOF in adversarial countries but doesn't ban it domestically. It calls for new regulations, which Renz interprets as "sanctioning" GOF by giving it a legal framework. The White House text supports this: Section 5 expands oversight to private labs, implying GOF will continue under supervision. However, "protects" might overstate it, there's no evidence the order actively shields GOF from future restrictions; it just doesn't stop it now.
The order's push for a "scalable" nucleic acid screening framework and "widespread adoption" suggests a commitment to mRNA and synthetic DNA tech, not a rollback. Renz's take, that it "enshrines" these technologies, aligns with the order's language about growth and scalability. But "codifies" implies a stronger legal entrenchment than the order delivers; it's more about enabling than mandating. The order lacks any call for pausing GOF or mRNA research to assess risks or ethics, despite its nod to "significantly endanger[ing]" lives. It focuses on regulatory infrastructure, not safety re-evaluation. Renz alleges Attorney General Pam Bondi, a Trump ally, has Pfizer ties (per her financial disclosures) and that her DOJ is opposing Brook Jackson's fraud case against Pfizer. This is unverified in the provided sources, and the Vigilant Fox report doesn't link to Bondi's disclosures. However, Jackson's case, alleging Pfizer falsified vaccine trial data, is real and ongoing, with DOJ opposition noted in legal filings. Bondi's role as AG could imply influence, but the report's claim she's "actively working against" RFK Jr. or blocking Epstein files is conjecture without evidence. This part leans on Renz's opinion, not hard proof.
The report is largely on point about the executive order's limited scope and pro-mRNA tilt, backed by the White House text. It correctly flags the domestic GOF loophole and regulatory focus. But it overreaches with Bondi's role and speculative motives (e.g., "fraud inside Trump's cabinet"), which lack substantiation.
Trump's GOF ban is real but narrow: it stops federal funding for risky research in hostile countries but lets domestic GOF continue under new rules. The Vigilant Fox report is mostly right, the order doesn't end GOF or mRNA tech and leans into regulating both for growth, not restriction. Its Bondi claims, though, are more heat than light, leaning on unverified allegations. Truth is, the order's less a ban and more a redirect, promising abroad, murky at home.
https://www.vigilantfox.com/p/disturbing-fine-print-reveals-new
"Trump's gain-of-function ban sounded like a huge win.
Many, including myself, celebrated.
Then we read the fine print—and discovered a massive red flag:
The US banned GOF research abroad—while quietly protecting it at home.
One key Trump ally is linked to Pfizer—and she's actually helping block a major COVID whistleblower case.
Attorney Tom Renz breaks down all the details—and calls out who he sees as an obvious fraud inside Trump's cabinet.
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
The Trump administration's gain-of-function announcement sounded like a big move, but it wasn't the whole story.
Instead of shutting down dangerous research, the policy may actually be laying the groundwork to expand it.
Attorney and medical freedom hero Tom Renz broke everything down in our exclusive interview. According to him, the new policy doesn't end gain-of-function, it essentially "codifies it."
In plain terms, the US says it won't fund gain-of-function research in adversarial countries. But domestically? That same restriction doesn't apply.
"They're going to allow it under new regulations," Renz said. "And by doing that, they're essentially saying, 'We're fine with gain-of-function as long as it follows the current rules.'
"So in that way, they're actually legitimizing gain-of-function work in this country, which is absolutely mind-blowing to me," he added.
The executive order begins with an encouraging statement: "Dangerous gain-of-function research on biological agents and pathogens has the potential to significantly endanger the lives of American citizens."
But keep reading. The order lays out a sweeping plan to expand the same mRNA technology disaster we saw with COVID.
1.) Section 4(b) directs officials to "revise or replace the 2024 'Framework for Nucleic Acid Synthesis Screening'" to ensure a "commonsense approach" that encourages widespread adoption. It doesn't ban synthetic DNA or RNA—it ensures it's more easily and broadly screened and distributed.
2.) The new framework must be "comprehensive, scalable, and verifiable." That language signals a system designed for growth. It's not about stopping the technology—it's about managing it at larger and larger scales.
3.) The executive order also calls for review and revision every 4 years, ensuring the system evolves as the industry grows.
4.) Section 5 expands oversight to non-federally funded research, meaning even private labs working with synthetic genetics are now in scope—another sign the government is preparing for widespread use.
There's no language anywhere suggesting caution, pause, or ethical review—just infrastructure to make sure this technology keeps going strong.
The conversation revealed that Attorney General Pam Bondi has previously represented Pfizer.
Tom Renz also suspected that some of the most powerful people in the Trump administration are actively working against Bobby Kennedy Jr.
Speaking of Pam Bondi—where are the Epstein files? And why does she keep making big promises while underdelivering?
Attorney Tom Renz had some pointed observations:
Bondi's DOJ is actively opposing the Brook Jackson fraud case against Pfizer.
Her financial disclosures list Pfizer as a recent connection.
He questioned whether Bondi is incompetent or deliberately misleading the public.
And he dropped a dose of reality, saying, if no one from the Epstein list has been jailed, why should we expect justice for COVID crimes?
Here's the main point you need to know, as Tom Renz puts it:
"The Executive Order on gain of function did NOT stop GOF work. Further, it actually enshrines mRNA and DNA tech by requiring regulation related to it. It also requires regulations surrounding GOF, which essentially sanctions it. This was NOT the win people are saying.
"I'm glad the President limited GOF, and this was an improvement in some ways, but whoever wrote this should be fired."
Comments