The CIA believes that Coidid-19 most likely originated in a laboratory, but has little confidence in its own findings

The CIA now believes the virus responsible for the Coid-19 pandemic most likely originated in a lab, according to an assessment released Saturday that points the finger at China, even as it acknowledged the spy agency has “low confidence” in its own conclusion.

The finding is not the result of any new intelligence, and the report was completed at the request of the Biden administration and former CIA Director William Burns. It was declassified and released on Saturday by order of President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the agency, John Ratcliffe, who was sworn in as director on Thursday.

The nuanced finding suggests the agency believes the totality of the evidence makes a laboratory origin more likely than a natural origin. But the agency’s assessment assigns a low degree of confidence to this conclusion, suggesting that the evidence is flawed, inconclusive, or conflicting.

Earlier reports on the origin of Covid-19 have split on whether the coronavirus emerged from a Chinese laboratory, potentially by mistake, or arose naturally. The new assessment is unlikely to settle the debate. In fact, intelligence officials say it will never be resolved due to a lack of cooperation from Chinese authorities.

The CIA “continues to assess that both the research and natural origin scenarios for the Covid-19 pandemic remain plausible,” the agency wrote in a statement about its new assessment.

Rather than new evidence, the conclusion was based on fresh intelligence analyzes of the spread of the virus, its scientific properties, and the operation and conditions of China’s virology laboratories.

US lawmakers pressed US spy agencies for more information about the origins of the virus, leading to lockdowns, economic upheaval and millions of deaths. It’s a question with significant domestic and geopolitical implications as the world continues to grapple with the legacy of the pandemic.

“Make China pay,” says the Republican senator

Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Saturday he was “satisfied with the CIA’s conclusion in the final days of the Biden administration that the lab leak theory was the most likely explanation” and praised Ratcliffe for declassifying the assessment.

“The most important thing now is to make China pay for unleashing the plague on the world,” Cotton said in a statement.

Chinese authorities have dismissed speculation about Covid’s origins as unhelpful and politically motivated. On Saturday, a spokesman for China’s US embassy said the CIA report lacked credibility.

“Stay away from conspiracy theories,” says Chinese official

“We firmly oppose the politicization and stigmatization of the source of the virus and once again urge everyone to respect science and stay away from conspiracy theories,” embassy spokesman Liu Pengyu said in an emailed statement to The Associated Press.

Although the origin of the virus remains unknown, scientists think the most likely hypothesis is that it circulated in bats, like many coronaviruses, before infecting another species, possibly raccoon dogs, civet cats or bamboo rats. In turn, the infection spread to people handling or butchering those market animals in Wuhan, where the first human cases appeared in late November 2019.

Some official investigations, however, have questioned whether the virus escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan. Two years ago, an Energy Department report concluded that a lab leak was the most likely source, although that report also expressed low confidence in the finding.

That same year, then-FBI Director Christopher Wray said that his agency believed the virus was “most likely” spreading after the laboratory victory.

Ratcliffe, who served as director of National Intelligence during Trump’s first term, said he also favors the lab leak scenario.

“Lab leakage is the only theory supported by science, intelligence and common sense,” Ratcliffe said in 2023.

The CIA said it would continue to evaluate any new information that might change its assessment.