Day: May 21, 2026

Man made epidemics – Google Search  google.com/search?q=Man+made…

— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) May 21, 2026

news today chrome://contextual-tasks/?q=news+today&num=10&newwindow=1&sca_esv=3c760e260642725e&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS1133US1133&sxsrf=ANbL-n65EswCKrTaaUnIrnkmwjtYv7gFJA%3A1779390423002&udm=50&fbs=ADc_l-aN0CWEZBOHjofHoaMMDiKp0UJuhqwKhR0QUhF54-6jIeXhzwX3V5R0etslDc8-1a2c7pkksHrL91hoDa96YxXI3QIG7cMZdhEMFrIa7NWK2AIXkCCIsv37zM1V77cC3js50C-7xvHFN_7Bguo1IujcfqkMv-TBmE6qMrDcEkIy09gGqpcPFKuRztFqpTfho44bH9ubIAiB_oGQuW5iRG1KKmsz8g&aep=1&ntc=1&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwjzttHwicuUAxXBKVkFHefsM9EQ2J8OegQIDhAD&biw=1536&bih=695.2000122070312&dpr=1.25&sourceid=chrome&ccb=1&cs=0&hl=en-US&mstk=AUtExfDw0-ea6zFM2HfhCg_wQpbwxA-zoy2Us7PNuTFDTJbYJwBhGMlyu9efzsX6hOGiSHROwKwyegCh1BRjocsk0cAnSS9KlWmrRARJgEkcU6ijkPgnfcuf1vp8ECpr3TMqDOI7ZQtJwgW2sp8YLgVbyc3yTRjjVFZKDbQ&csuir=1&mtid=5FcPapW5D8iviLMPuLmIuQM&chrome_task_id=78f7c5a9-023d-46f8-8ac8-a4238945ce50

— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) May 21, 2026

#CIA  #FBI  #Security – Selected Quotes
Biological Threats to the U.S. Security: Analysis, Risks, Strategies
share.google/aimode/usKJoGFd…
Evolving Risk Assessment & Threat Scenarios
The biological threat landscape has fundamentally changed due to geopolitical friction and rapid technological breakthroughs. Modern assessments categorize risks into three primary origins:Deliberate Threats (State and Non-State Actors): The U.S. Intelligence Community explicitly flags capabilities in nations like Russia, North Korea, China, and Iran. Additionally, policymakers face the risk of non-state actors or terrorist groups seeking traditional mass-casualty agents like Bacillus anthracis (anthrax), smallpox, or botulinum toxin.AI-Enabled Biotechnology: The convergence of artificial intelligence and biology has significantly lowered technical barriers. Commercial Large Language Models (LLMs) are on the verge of providing step-by-step actionable planning for novices, while specialized Biological Design Tools (BDTs) could allow state actors to design novel, pandemic-scale pathogens that bypass existing medical countermeasures.

1. Advanced Biosurveillance and Rapid CharacterizationThe U.S. utilizes automated syndromic surveillance platforms to analyze clinical data in real time and detect anomalies before widespread outbreaks occur. Specialized facilities like the National Bioforensic Analysis Center (NBFAC) and the Department of Defense rapidly process samples to characterize novel pathogens within one week of acquisition, accelerating origin determination and attribution.

4. Guardrails on Artificial IntelligenceTo mitigate AI-driven biological risks, the U.S. is pushing for rigorous screening mechanisms among DNA synthesis providers and cloud-based lab platforms. Countermeasures include enforcing “unlearning” features within AI foundation models to strip them of harmful bioweapons execution data, alongside information-hazard filtering during model training.
–

Biological Threats: U.S. Security Analysis  gemini.google.com/share/f4fa…
Gemini
The landscape of biological threats to U.S. national security has fundamentally shifted. For decades, biodefense was viewed through the narrow lens of countering specific terrorist plots or securing legacy stockpiles left over from the Cold War. Today, the convergence of rapid advancements in biotechnology, the democratization of artificial intelligence, and the proliferation of high-containment laboratories has created a highly complex, multi-vector threat environment.  Addressing these threats requires moving beyond traditional public health paradigms and integrating biodefense directly into grand strategy, intelligence operations, and national security architecture.

In modern conflict, state actors may view biological agents not just as weapons of mass destruction, but as tools for strategic disruption—inflicting economic damage, eroding military readiness, or destabilizing civilian populations below the threshold of nuclear retaliation.

The State-Crime Nexus and Non-State Actors: The traditional barrier to entry for biological weapons was the massive infrastructure required for research, testing, and weaponization. However, transnational organized crime networks and proxy groups present a unique risk. These networks can facilitate the illicit procurement of dual-use equipment, precursor materials, or even genetic sequences, bridging the gap between state-level intent and deniable, non-state execution.

The global proliferation of high-containment laboratories researching high-consequence pathogens increases the statistical probability of an accidental leak.

The Technology Multiplier:
AI and Synthetic Biology
The intersection of artificial intelligence and synthetic biology is perhaps the most significant disruptive force in modern biosecurity. Accelerating the Threat Historically, developing a functional biological weapon required specialized, tacit knowledge—the kind acquired only through years of hands-on laboratory experience. Today, large language models and specialized foundation models are beginning to bridge this knowledge gap. AI systems can assist malicious actors in troubleshooting failed experiments, optimizing pathogen transmissibility, or identifying vulnerabilities in target populations. Combined with accessible DNA synthesis and CRISPR gene-editing technologies, the “design-build-test-learn” cycle for creating novel pathogens is becoming faster, cheaper, and harder to track. 
AI and OSINT as Defensive Assets
Conversely, AI and open-source intelligence (OSINT) are critical to modern bio surveillance. Traditional intelligence gathering is often too slow to detect an emerging biological threat. By aggregating and analyzing vast streams of open-source data—social media trends, localized supply chain disruptions, health care data, and even global flight patterns—AI tools can identify epidemiological anomalies weeks before official reporting channels flag them.

National Biodefense Strategy Explained  gemini.google.com/share/e014…
–
The National Biodefense Strategy (NBS)
share.google/aimode/c84EXmza…
The Intelligence and Geopolitical Dimension
While much of the NBS reads like a public health document, its operational core is deeply embedded in national security. The strategy explicitly acknowledges that biological threats are no longer the exclusive domain of major state actors. The democratization of biotechnology and gene-editing tools means that transnational organized crime syndicates, proxy groups, and lone actors present a severe and evolving threat.  The strategy tasks the intelligence community, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Homeland Security with building robust capabilities to monitor this “state-crime nexus” and deter the development of biological weapons, emphasizing that biological incidents anywhere in the world immediately impact U.S. physical and economic security.
–

— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) May 21, 2026

#CIA  #FBI  #Security – Selected Quotes
Biological Threats to the U.S. Security: Analysis, Risks, Strategies
share.google/aimode/usKJoGFd…
Evolving Risk Assessment & Threat Scenarios
he biological threat landscape has fundamentally changed due to geopolitical friction and rapid technological breakthroughs. Modern assessments categorize risks into three primary origins:Deliberate Threats (State and Non-State Actors): The U.S. Intelligence Community explicitly flags capabilities in nations like Russia, North Korea, China, and Iran. Additionally, policymakers face the risk of non-state actors or terrorist groups seeking traditional mass-casualty agents like Bacillus anthracis (anthrax), smallpox, or botulinum toxin.AI-Enabled Biotechnology: The convergence of artificial intelligence and biology has significantly lowered technical barriers. Commercial Large Language Models (LLMs) are on the verge of providing step-by-step actionable planning for novices, while specialized Biological Design Tools (BDTs) could allow state actors to design novel, pandemic-scale pathogens that bypass existing medical countermeasures.

1. Advanced Biosurveillance and Rapid CharacterizationThe U.S. utilizes automated syndromic surveillance platforms to analyze clinical data in real time and detect anomalies before widespread outbreaks occur. Specialized facilities like the National Bioforensic Analysis Center (NBFAC) and the Department of Defense rapidly process samples to characterize novel pathogens within one week of acquisition, accelerating origin determination and attribution.

4. Guardrails on Artificial IntelligenceTo mitigate AI-driven biological risks, the U.S. is pushing for rigorous screening mechanisms among DNA synthesis providers and cloud-based lab platforms. Countermeasures include enforcing “unlearning” features within AI foundation models to strip them of harmful bioweapons execution data, alongside information-hazard filtering during model training.
–

Biological Threats: U.S. Security Analysis  gemini.google.com/share/f4fa…
Gemini
The landscape of biological threats to U.S. national security has fundamentally shifted. For decades, biodefense was viewed through the narrow lens of countering specific terrorist plots or securing legacy stockpiles left over from the Cold War. Today, the convergence of rapid advancements in biotechnology, the democratization of artificial intelligence, and the proliferation of high-containment laboratories has created a highly complex, multi-vector threat environment.  Addressing these threats requires moving beyond traditional public health paradigms and integrating biodefense directly into grand strategy, intelligence operations, and national security architecture.

In modern conflict, state actors may view biological agents not just as weapons of mass destruction, but as tools for strategic disruption—inflicting economic damage, eroding military readiness, or destabilizing civilian populations below the threshold of nuclear retaliation.

The State-Crime Nexus and Non-State Actors: The traditional barrier to entry for biological weapons was the massive infrastructure required for research, testing, and weaponization. However, transnational organized crime networks and proxy groups present a unique risk. These networks can facilitate the illicit procurement of dual-use equipment, precursor materials, or even genetic sequences, bridging the gap between state-level intent and deniable, non-state execution.

The global proliferation of high-containment laboratories researching high-consequence pathogens increases the statistical probability of an accidental leak.

The Technology Multiplier:
AI and Synthetic Biology
The intersection of artificial intelligence and synthetic biology is perhaps the most significant disruptive force in modern biosecurity. Accelerating the Threat Historically, developing a functional biological weapon required specialized, tacit knowledge—the kind acquired only through years of hands-on laboratory experience. Today, large language models and specialized foundation models are beginning to bridge this knowledge gap. AI systems can assist malicious actors in troubleshooting failed experiments, optimizing pathogen transmissibility, or identifying vulnerabilities in target populations. Combined with accessible DNA synthesis and CRISPR gene-editing technologies, the “design-build-test-learn” cycle for creating novel pathogens is becoming faster, cheaper, and harder to track. 
AI and OSINT as Defensive Assets
Conversely, AI and open-source intelligence (OSINT) are critical to modern bio surveillance. Traditional intelligence gathering is often too slow to detect an emerging biological threat. By aggregating and analyzing vast streams of open-source data—social media trends, localized supply chain disruptions, health care data, and even global flight patterns—AI tools can identify epidemiological anomalies weeks before official reporting channels flag them.

National Biodefense Strategy Explained  gemini.google.com/share/e014…
–
The National Biodefense Strategy (NBS)
share.google/aimode/c84EXmza…
The Intelligence and Geopolitical Dimension
While much of the NBS reads like a public health document, its operational core is deeply embedded in national security. The strategy explicitly acknowledges that biological threats are no longer the exclusive domain of major state actors. The democratization of biotechnology and gene-editing tools means that transnational organized crime syndicates, proxy groups, and lone actors present a severe and evolving threat.  The strategy tasks the intelligence community, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Homeland Security with building robust capabilities to monitor this “state-crime nexus” and deter the development of biological weapons, emphasizing that biological incidents anywhere in the world immediately impact U.S. physical and economic security.
–

— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) May 21, 2026

Selected Quotes
Biological Threats: U.S. Security Analysis  gemini.google.com/share/f4fa…

— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) May 21, 2026

#CIA  #FBI 
The Convergence of AI and  #Biotech: The commercialization of Biological Design Tools (BDTs) and Large Language Models (LLMs) has drastically lowered technical barriers. Novice actors can now source actionable information to plan biological attacks, while advanced tools assist in engineering novel, vaccine-evading pathogens.

Biological Threats to the U.S. Security: Analysis, Risks, Strategies
share.google/aimode/AXyJM92R…
Biological threats pose a severe and evolving challenge to U.S. national security, encompassing natural pandemics, accidental laboratory leaks, and deliberate acts of bioterrorism. To counter these complex hazards, the U.S. government relies on a multi-agency National Biodefense Strategy focused on a doctrine of “deterrence by denial” to make biological weapons obsolete through rapid detection and response capabilities. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
🔬 Threat Analysis: The Evolving Bio-Landscape
The modern biological threat matrix is no longer limited to legacy weaponized pathogens. It is heavily shaped by geopolitical friction and exponential leaps in technology: [6, 7]
State-Sponsored Capabilities: The U.S. Intelligence Community identifies persistent bioweapons capabilities and advanced research programs in nations such as Russia, North Korea, China, and Iran.

The Convergence of AI and Biotech: The commercialization of Biological Design Tools (BDTs) and Large Language Models (LLMs) has drastically lowered technical barriers. Novice actors can now source actionable information to plan biological attacks, while advanced tools assist in engineering novel, vaccine-evading pathogens.
Data and Supply Chain Vulnerabilities: Adversarial collection of global health and genetic data (multiomics) poses long-term profiling risks. Concurrently, foreign dominance over critical pharmaceutical ingredients and medical supply lines creates a severe strategic bottleneck. [8, 9, 10, 11]
⚠️ Primary Strategic Risks

A comprehensive risk assessment by the Center for Health Security divides biological dangers into three distinct categories: [3, 12, 13, 14]
┌───────────────────────────────┐
                       │   U.S. BIOLOGICAL RISKS       │
                       └───────────────┬───────────────┘
          ┌────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────┐
          ▼                            ▼                            ▼
┌───────────────────┐        ┌───────────────────┐        ┌───────────────────┐
│     DELIBERATE    │        │     ACCIDENTAL    │        │      NATURAL      │
├───────────────────┤        ├───────────────────┤        ├───────────────────┤
│ • Bioterrorism    │        │ • Lab leaks/escapes│        │ • Novel pandemics │
│ • State programs  │        │ • Cyber theft of  │        │ • Antimicrobial   │
│ • Agro-terrorism  │        │   pathogen data   │        │   resistance      │
└───────────────────┘        └───────────────────┘        └───────────────────┘
Global Catastrophic Biological Risks (GCBRs): These are sudden, widespread events capable of causing over 100 million deaths, collapsing national economies, and destabilizing global security.

Laboratory and Research Biosafety: The rapid multiplication of high-containment Biosafety Level 4 (BSL-4) labs globally increases the statistical probability of accidental pathogen escapes or insider theft.
Agricultural and Environmental Threats: Weaponized pathogens targeting livestock or vital food crops (agro-terrorism) can paralyze the American agribusiness sector and cripple food security. [12, 15, 16, 17, 18]
🛡️ U.S. Counterstrategies & Mitigation Plans
The United States addresses these risks through an integrated framework of domestic policies and international programs: [19]
1. Advanced Biosurveillance and Data Isolation [20]
Early Warning Systems: Federal systems utilize automated syndromic surveillance, such as ESSENCE, to monitor global real-time health data for early signs of anomalous outbreaks.
The Biosecure Act: Legislative efforts strictly prohibit U.S. federal agencies from procuring equipment or collaborating with foreign biotechnology firms tied to foreign adversaries. This shields sensitive American genetic datasets from exploitation. [11, 20, 21, 22]
2. Threat Characterization and Forensics
NBACC Research: The National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center (NBACC) runs maximum-security BSL-4 facilities. It executes forensic testing to definitively attribute the origins of biocrimes or biological accidents.
The Federal Select Agent Program: Managed jointly by the FBI’s Bioterrorism Risk Assessment Group (BRAG) and health officials, this program strictly vets individuals seeking access to high-consequence biological toxins. [23, 24, 25, 26, 27]
3. AI Guardrails and Agile Response
Synthesized DNA Screening: Modern protocols require providers of genetic synthesis to rigorously screen customers and cloud-laboratory requests to prevent the unauthorized creation of regulated agents.

Inter-Agency All-Hazards Response: Domestic defense structures bind the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Health and Human Services (HHS), and the CDC to execute regional medical countermeasures, distribution of the Strategic National Stockpile, and mass vaccination strategies. [4, 28, 29, 30, 31]
To explore specific areas of biodefense further, please let me know if you would like to look closer into AI biosecurity guardrails, examine the Biosecure Act’s supply chain impacts, or analyze the inter-agency logistics of an epidemic response.

–

AI Overview
Biological threats to U.S. national security encompass the risks of naturally emerging pandemics, accidental laboratory releases, and deliberate bioterrorism. These hazards jeopardize public health, agricultural stability, and economic resilience, driving the U.S. government to prioritize advanced biosurveillance, strict biotechnology regulation, and aggressive supply-chain security. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Analysis of the Threat Landscape
The U.S. government approaches biological security through a multi-faceted risk lens defined in the National Biodefense Strategy. Threats are divided into three primary categories:

Naturally Occurring: Zoonotic diseases and novel pathogens that jump from animals to humans, exacerbated by global travel, urbanization, and climate change.
Deliberate & Intentional: The weaponization of Category A pathogens (e.g., anthrax, smallpox, Ebola) by rogue nation-states or terrorist organizations.
Accidental & Emerging Technology: The accidental escape of highly dangerous pathogens from high-containment laboratories (BSL-3 and BSL-4), or the misuse of synthetic biology and advanced AI by non-expert actors. [9, 10, 11, 12, 13]

Strategic Risks
The intelligence community consistently identifies biological warfare capabilities in adversarial states like Russia and North Korea, with ongoing research in China and Iran. Key strategic risks include:

Biotechnology Supply Chain Vulnerabilities: The reliance on foreign nations (such as China) for active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) and critical medical equipment poses a strategic vulnerability.
Global Catabolic Biological Risks (GCBRs): Events or engineered threats capable of causing sudden, catastrophic disaster and widespread economic devastation that could exceed national containment capabilities.
AI-Enabled Proliferation: The use of large language models and advanced AI tools to bypass safety guardrails, potentially lowering the barrier to entry for non-expert actors to synthesize or engineer dangerous pathogens. [9, 11, 14, 15, 16]

U.S. Strategies and Countermeasures
To combat these vulnerabilities, U.S. policymakers and agencies are executing targeted legislative and operational strategies:

The BIOSECURE Act: Designed to protect U.S. biotechnology intellectual property and federal supply chains from adversarial manipulation, the act restricts federal agencies from contracting with specific biotechnology providers linked to foreign adversaries.
utilizes probabilistic analysis and threat characterization to model risks and provide localized defense tools against CBRNE (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive) threats.Modernized Biosurveillance: The Department of Homeland Security’sPANTHR program
The Bipartisan Alliance Working Group: Organizations like the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) continue to push for modernized biosafety protocols, aiming to strengthen recovery pipelines and reverse the historical cycle of panic and neglect in American biodefense. [1, 2, 17, 18, 19]
If you are looking to explore this topic further, I can provide additional information on:

The specific agents and pathogens prioritized by the CDC

How the BIOSECURE Act affects domestic biotech and pharmaceutical markets
The role of AI regulations in preventing synthetic bio-threats
Let me know which area you’d like to dive into!

AI responses may include mistakes.

[1]  csis.org/analysis/protecting…

[2]  bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov…
[3]  aspr.hhs.gov/biodefense/Page…
[4]  mdpi.com/1424-2818/17/3/213
[5]  hoganlovells.com/en/publicat…
[6]  scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.ed…
[7]  biodefensecommission.org/eve…
[8]  studysmarter.co.uk/explanati…
[9]  youtube.com/watch?v=RxqrAXdU…
[10]  trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov…
[11]  biodefensecommission.org/wp-…
[12]  youtube.com/watch?v=LmEX2kot…
[13]  pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/article…
[14]  councilonstrategicrisks.org/…
[15]  centerforhealthsecurity.org/…
[16]  learninghealth.org/blog/2025…
[17]  youtube.com/watch?v=IaDeO_XU…
[18]  youtube.com/watch?v=qByV-TNp…
[19]  dhs.gov/sites/default/files/…
–

Biological Threats: U.S. Security Analysis  gemini.google.com/share/f44a…
The landscape of biological threats to U.S. national security has fundamentally shifted. For decades, biodefense was viewed through the narrow lens of countering specific terrorist plots or securing legacy stockpiles left over from the Cold War. Today, the convergence of rapid advancements in biotechnology, the democratization of artificial intelligence, and the proliferation of high-containment laboratories has created a highly complex, multi-vector threat environment.

Addressing these threats requires moving beyond traditional public health paradigms and integrating biodefense directly into grand strategy, intelligence operations, and national security architecture.

The Threat Landscape: A Multi-Vector Environment

Biological threats are generally categorized into three origins: deliberate, accidental, and natural. From a national security perspective, the lines between these vectors are increasingly blurred, as the strategic impact of a biological event is catastrophic regardless of its source.

State-Sponsored Programs: The intelligence community assesses that nations like Russia and North Korea maintain active biological weapons programs in violation of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). China’s compliance remains ambiguous due to insufficient verification data. In modern conflict, state actors may view biological agents not just as weapons of mass destruction, but as tools for strategic disruption—inflicting economic damage, eroding military readiness, or destabilizing civilian populations below the threshold of nuclear retaliation.
The State-Crime Nexus and Non-State Actors: The traditional barrier to entry for biological weapons was the massive infrastructure required for research, testing, and weaponization. However, transnational organized crime networks and proxy groups present a unique risk. These networks can facilitate the illicit procurement of dual-use equipment, precursor materials, or even genetic sequences, bridging the gap between state-level intent and deniable, non-state execution.
Accidental and Natural Risks: The global proliferation of high-containment laboratories researching high-consequence pathogens increases the statistical probability of an accidental leak. Simultaneously, the accelerating frequency of zoonotic spillover events poses a persistent threat to economic stability, military readiness, and public health infrastructure.

The Technology Multiplier: AI and Synthetic Biology

The intersection of artificial intelligence and synthetic biology is perhaps the most significant disruptive force in modern biosecurity.

Accelerating the Threat
Historically, developing a functional biological weapon required specialized, tacit knowledge—the kind acquired only through years of hands-on laboratory experience. Today, large language models and specialized foundation models are beginning to bridge this knowledge gap. AI systems can assist malicious actors in troubleshooting failed experiments, optimizing pathogen transmissibility, or identifying vulnerabilities in target populations. Combined with accessible DNA synthesis and CRISPR gene-editing technologies, the “design-build-test-learn” cycle for creating novel pathogens is becoming faster, cheaper, and harder to track.

AI and OSINT as Defensive Assets
Conversely, AI and open-source intelligence (OSINT) are critical to modern biosurveillance. Traditional intelligence gathering is often too slow to detect an emerging biological threat. By aggregating and analyzing vast streams of open-source data—social media trends, localized supply chain disruptions, health care data, and even global flight patterns—AI tools can identify epidemiological anomalies weeks before official reporting channels flag them.

Strategic Responses and Intelligence Evolution

The U.S. strategy is increasingly shifting toward deterrence by denial—making the homeland so resilient, and detection so rapid, that an adversary calculates a biological attack will fail to achieve its strategic objectives. Executing this strategy requires significant structural evolution within the intelligence and security apparatus.

1. Overcoming Intelligence Fragmentation

Historically, biosurveillance has suffered from chronic fragmentation, stove-piped across the CDC, the USDA, legacy programs like BioWatch, and various intelligence agencies. Effective biodefense requires a centralized, cohesive intelligence structure. Evolving counterintelligence services—such as the FBI and the CIA—must prioritize biological threat intelligence on par with cyber threats or nuclear proliferation. Re-establishing and empowering a dedicated biological threat directorate within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) is critical for synthesizing classified intelligence with global health data and OSINT.

2. Modernizing Biosurveillance Networks

Early warning is the linchpin of biodefense. The U.S. must expand its reliance on agnostic detection systems that do not require prior knowledge of a specific pathogen. This includes scaling wastewater surveillance at international airports, military installations, and embassies. Advanced molecular detection and genomic sequencing must be integrated into a real-time, global surveillance network to identify engineered or novel pathogens at the point of origin.

3. Securing the Bio-Economy and Supply Chains

The U.S. remains heavily reliant on foreign supply chains for active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), personal protective equipment, and essential laboratory supplies. A core pillar of biosecurity strategy is reshoring or near-shoring the manufacturing of critical medical countermeasures and maintaining warm-base production capacity to ensure the U.S. can respond rapidly to an outbreak without supply chain blackmail.
–

— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) May 21, 2026