Introduction

More than four years since the onset of COVID-19, the world appears to have rapidly come to terms with the virus, particularly after the World Health Organization (WHO) declared an end to its status as a global health emergency in May 2023. Mentions of COVID-19 now primarily serve as reminders of its waning impact, often framed in the context of a post-COVID-19 recovery or as a pivot toward preparation for potential future pandemics.

One pandemic-related issue that has retained political salience, particularly in the context of the U.S.-China relations, is the debate over the origins of COVID-19. The origins issue centers on where and how the virus came from. While almost all the rest of the world agreed that the virus emerged in Wuhan, China, China began to deny being the origin point of the outbreak in March 2020. Similarly, while there was an initial near-consensus within the scientific community that SARS-CoV-2 likely emerged from a zoonotic spillover, public sentiments and political agendas in both U.S. and China have, at various times, leaned toward theories that implicate the other side being the initiator of an accidental or deliberate release of the virus. Amid existing geopolitical tensions, such finger-pointing and politically driven accusations have only encouraged the spread of misinformation and disinformation. Consequently, what should primarily be a scientific inquiry has been overshadowed by politics, with both sides advancing unsubstantiated theories for domestic political gain.

This chapter examines the politicization of the debate over the origins issue, exploring its molding by U.S.-China relations and its subsequent impact on bilateral ties. It scrutinizes the divergent narratives on both sides, illuminating how they have undermined mutual trust and resulted in communication breakdowns that hinder cooperation between the two nations.

The Rise of the Fringe Theories

Since the novel coronavirus first appeared in Wuhan, the location of China’s only biosafety level 4 (BSF-4) lab designed to handle the world’s most dangerous pathogens, many were quick to draw a connection between the two. On January 30, 2020, U.S. Senator Tom Cotton tweeted about a potential link between the virus and the lab at Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) (Cotton 2020). He subsequently clarified in later tweets, distinguishing between the idea of an engineered virus and other scenarios, such as a lab accident. A day after Cotton’s tweet, a paper authored by Indian scientists, posted on the preprint website bioRxiv, hinted that the virus might be genetically engineered (Pradhan et al. 2020).

Almost the same time, theories began circulating on Chinese social media suggesting the virus had U.S. origins. Such theories either associated the virus with the spike in pneumonia cases due to vaping in the U.S. or linked it to illnesses among foreign soldiers during the Military World Games that took place in Wuhan in October 2019. A widely circulated screenshot in China alleged that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had confirmed that the virus’s origins were in the U.S. This claim, however, stemmed from a misinterpretation of a CNN headline dated February 27, which read, “CDC confirms first coronavirus case of ‘unknown’ origin in U.S.”

Such theories, though, were largely marginalized, lacking endorsement from prominent intellectuals or government officials on both sides. The prevailing view among Chinese and international scientists was that the outbreak resulted from a zoonotic infection—transmitted from wild animals to humans. A near-consensus formed around bats being the natural reservoir for the virus. There was also speculation that pangolins, considered a delicacy in China, might have acted as the intermediate host, transmitting the novel virus to humans.

In a February 2020 letter published in The Lancet, public health scientists denounced “conspiracy theories” suggesting that COVID-19 originated from a lab in Wuhan (Calisher et al. 2020). Major publications, including the Washington Post, initially labeled Senator Cotton’s claim as a conspiracy theory (see, e.g., Firozi 2020). Cui Tiankai, Chinese ambassador to the U.S., described the allegations of a man-made virus “absolutely crazy,” thereby indicating the virus was not engineered in either China or the U.S. (Quinn 2020).

Chinese state-run newspapers and major online platforms like Tencent and Netease initially published articles and interviews aimed at dispelling these rumors or conspiracy theories, indicating that attributing the U.S. as the virus's origin was not the dominant propaganda narrative at that time. Notably, up until late February, China seemed to accept the label of being the starting place of the outbreak. The government initially did not dispute the use of the term “Wuhan virus,” and the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan was officially identified as a potential point of origin for SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19.

Disputing China as the Pandemic’s Origin

On February 27, 2020, Dr. Zhong Nanshan, a prominent figure in China’s response to COVID-19, made a surprising statement at a government-sponsored press conference. He said that “given the new developments overseas, the disease that was first detected in China does not necessarily mean that it originated here” (Xiao and Le 2020). However, Zhong did not offer any evidence to support this claim, nor did he elaborate the “new developments” he mentioned. The next day, Zhang Wenhong, a respected infectious disease expert based in Shanghai known for his candor, refuted Zhong’s assertion in an exclusive interview with the state-run China Daily (Kuo 2020).

By March 2020, the spread of COVID-19 was close to being stabilized in China, while the U.S. emerged as the new epicenter, recording more cases than any other country. The divergent paths presented China with an opportunity to promote a narrative of authoritarian superiority over liberal democracy. However, this narrative would be compromised if China continued to be viewed as the pandemic’s origin, especially given the government’s early missteps in handling the outbreak. Indeed, from the beginning of the pandemic, the Chinese government faced significant international scrutiny for failing to disclose accurate information on the case counts and transmissibility of the virus, scrutiny that was only intensified with the emergence of the lab leak theory. Almost simultaneously, China’s social media was flooded with posts and articles suggesting the U.S. as the pandemic’s starting point (Shih 2020). On March 4, foreign ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian leveraged Dr. Zhong Nanshan’s earlier comments to argue that China’s role as the origin had never been conclusively proven. “We must jointly oppose the ‘information virus’ and ‘political virus,’” Zhao stated. “Certain media outlets, with no factual basis, hastily labeled it the ‘Chinese virus,’ attempting to blame China for the global crisis. Such actions are deeply malicious” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2020).

In the meantime, the virus’s origins became a political focal point in the U.S. As the country grappled with rising COVID-19 cases and deaths, the Trump administration, under criticism for its handling of the pandemic, frequently pointed to China as a primary culprit. Key U.S. officials accentuated this connection. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo often referred to the virus as “Wuhan,” despite the WHO officially naming the disease COVID-19. In response, China expressed strong disapproval, labeling Pompeo’s naming convention a “despicable practice” (Bowden 2020).

The tit-for-tat escalated when, on March 13, Zhao Lijian took to Twitter, floating a conspiracy theory that the U.S. Army could have introduced the virus to Wuhan. He further insinuated that a biosafety incident at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) in Maryland, leading to its shutdown in August 2019, might be the real cause of the outbreak. In response, President Trump ramped up his rhetoric. While he had initially referred to SARS-CoV-2 as a “foreign virus,” he began increasingly using the term “Chinese virus” (Yam 2020). This shift became especially evident on March 19 when, during a press briefing, it was observed that he had manually changed “Corona” to “Chinese” in his prepared notes (Coleman 2020).

Trump’s persistent and intentional use of the term “Chinese virus” drew widespread condemnation, being labeled as racist and xenophobic by both U.S. and Chinese media. However, this rhetoric inadvertently also fueled nationalistic sentiments in China, bolstering support for the official narrative that absolved China of any responsibility for the outbreak. Both Chinese social and state media were inundated with purported “evidence” of outbreaks predating China’s in various countries, including the U.S., Japan, France, Italy, Spain, and Brazil (China Daily 2020). One Chinese scholar confided in a private WeChat exchange, “I suspect 90 percent of those in rural areas or small cities are convinced the virus originated in the United States.” Surprisingly, even a significant number of Chinese elites, primarily residing in major urban cities, succumbed to these conspiracy theories. Often, respected academics from premier Chinese universities or think tanks eagerly shared social media posts promoting the idea of China being uninvolved in the virus’s origin. Meanwhile, the Chinese government continued to employ obfuscation to deny the pandemic emanated in China. In March 2023, when questioned about the U.S. COVID-19 Origin Act of 2023—which referred to China as a probable starting point of the pandemic—the foreign ministry spokesperson deflected by citing “global concerns” about U.S. biological labs, including Fort Detrick and the University of North Carolina, insinuating that the U.S. might be the actual source of the outbreak (Liu 2023).

Disputing the Etiological Origins of the Pandemic

The debate over the virus's origins encompasses not just its geographic emergence but also its etiological inception. The enigma surrounding the outbreak’s cause has given rise to various theories. Initially, the consensus among scientists was that the virus likely emanated from natural exposure to an animal carrying SARS-CoV-2 or a similar predecessor. While the zoonosis hypothesis remains predominant in explaining how the pandemic started, other theories include:

  1. 1.

    The possibility of an engineered virus, which postulates that SARS-CoV-2 was deliberately manipulated for research or other purposes in a laboratory setting.

  2. 2.

    The lab leak theory, suggesting a biosafety lapse resulted in the virus’s escape from a research facility.

  3. 3.

    The cold-chain transmission theory, posited mainly by Chinese health authorities, proposing that the virus transitioned to humans via frozen goods, possibly from international imports.

In late April 2020, as international pressures for investigating the origins of the pandemic built up, Australia became the first country to publicly demand such scrutiny. The sentiment quickly gained global traction. On May 19, more than 130 WHO member states rallied behind a landmark resolution, urging the WHO director general to work with other organizations and countries “to identify the zoonotic source of the virus and the route of introduction to the human population” (World Health Organization 2020).

Amid mounting international pressure, China acquiesced to a WHO investigative mission. However, this endeavor found itself caught between Beijing, which sought to preserve its pandemic narrative, and Washington, which was looking for scapegoats for its own mismanagement of the crisis. In July, Trump announced the U.S. would withdraw from WHO, which he accused of siding with China and hiding the true nature of the outbreak. Mike Pompeo was skeptical of the WHO probe's transparency, anticipating a potential “whitewash” (Reuters 2020). China responded by framing the U.S. as a more probable outbreak origin. A government newspaper linked the timing of the U.S. decision to withdraw from the WHO to the dispatch of the WHO advance team to China, suggesting that the U.S. did so to avoid an international investigation (Fan 2020). China’s foreign ministry urged on August 4 that the U.S. “fully clarify” its “militarization of biological activities overseas” (Xinhua 2020).

Trump’s move also further diminished U.S. influence over both the WHO and China, enabling China to gain more leverage over the WHO in the origins probe. During the selection of scientists for the mission, it was alleged that the WHO rejected nominees from the U.S. government. The terms of reference agreed upon by the WHO and China effectively reduced the investigation to a joint study, in which the WHO-led team lacked the mandate and access required to conduct a thorough and independent investigation (Huang 2021a). In January 2021, after extended diplomatic wrangling, an international research team arrived in Wuhan. On February 9, preliminary findings from the joint WHO-China study were disclosed, which was followed by an official release of the report on March 30 (The World Health Organization 2021). The report backed the natural outbreak theory and recognized the potential of transmission via imported frozen food, but dismissed the lab escape hypothesis.

Instead of fostering mutual understanding, the joint study widened the rift between the U.S. and China. China viewed the report as a vindication, believing it conclusively refuted the theory that COVID-19 was a result of a lab accident in Wuhan. The Chinese team leader emphasized the lab theory’s dismissal, suggesting future investigations would veer away from this angle barring new evidence (Chen et al. 2021). China would later invoke this report, contending the WHO had settled the matter, negating any further inquiry within its borders.

Conversely, U.S. officials critiqued the study for its limited scope and dependence on Chinese-provided data. U.S. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan conveyed significant reservations regarding the study’s methodology and conclusions (The White House 2021).Detractors opined that the report did not take the lab leak theory seriously enough, especially given restricted access to the WIV. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus subsequently stated that all theories merited further study (Sample 2021).

The Lab Leak Theory Gains Steam

Of all the proposed hypotheses, the lab leak theory has proven to be the most contentious. Advocates for this theory in the U.S. cite a set of circumstantial evidence linking the outbreak to the WIV. They noted that Dr. Shi Zhengli, a virologist often nicknamed “Batwoman” due to her extensive research on bat coronaviruses, was the central figure behind the lab leak (Yang et al. 2020). They also referred to past lapses in lab safety protocols in Chinese research facilities as further evidence supporting the theory (Huang 2020).

While China persistently denies the plausibility of a lab escape in Wuhan, the Trump administration officially endorsed it in May 2020, claiming there was “enormous evidence” that the virus originated from the BSL-4 lab in the city (Sanger 2020). However, the theory turned toxic for democrats. With only months until the presidential election, they perceived Trump’s backing of the lab leak hypothesis as a ploy by the administration to divert attention from its failings in managing the spread of COVID-19 (Stolberg and Mueller 2023).

In late July, the Wall Street Journal featured an opinion piece by Jamie Metzl, a researcher at the Atlantic Council. The article leveraged China’s cover-ups during the outbreak to advocate the lab leak theory as a more plausible explanation compared to the dominant thesis that the virus had jumped to humans from animals in the wild or wet markets (Metzl 2020). Despite such articles challenging the so-called “enforced consensus,” few U.S. scientists publicly supported the lab leak hypothesis (O’Neal 2021). Some U.S. officials resisted further investigation of the hypothesis, concerned about unveiling the government’s role in funding Dr. Shi's bat research in Wuhan (Huang 2021b). Indeed, proponents of the lab leak theory, many of them Republican politicians, accused the National Institute of Health (NIH) of funding risky coronavirus experiments that might have precipitated the pandemic. They also alleged that top NIH officials, including Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins, attempted to quell scientific discussions that could reveal this connection (Cohen 2023). For most of the pandemic’s first year, the lab leak theory was primarily championed by right-wing media and political figures like Trump.

The election of Joe Biden opened a political window for the lab leak hypothesis to receive a closer look. In May 2021, 18 prominent scientists published a letter in Science, contending that “[t]heories of accidental release from lab and zoonotic spillover both remain viable,” and calling for a thorough review of whether the pandemic had originated from a lab leak or by natural spillover (Bloom et al. 2021). The Science letter opened the floodgates to accept the lab leak theory as a legitimate hypothesis on the origins of the pandemic. Mainstream media outlets began to give the lab leak scenario a fresh airing. An article in The Washington Post carried the headline, “Timeline: How the Wuhan lab leak theory suddenly became credible” (Kessler 2021). That same month, President Biden ordered a comprehensive, 90-day intelligence review of the origins of the pandemic, including the possibility of a lab leak.

China met these developments with denial and defiance. During a June 2021 phone conversation with China’s top diplomat, Yang Jiechi, in June 2021, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken sought cooperation and transparency over the origins of the COVID-19. However, Yang’s reply was dismissive. Accusing the U.S. of spreading the “absurd story” about the lab escape theory, Yang urged the U.S. to “respect facts and science” and “refrain from politicizing the issue” (Daly et al. 2021).

While refusing to work with the U.S. in the origins probe, Chinese diplomats began advancing their own lab leak narrative. They highlighted the U.S. reluctance to disclose information about its biodefence program, suggesting that such hesitancy was indicative of a “guilty conscience” (Huang 2021c). Commenting on Biden’s announcement of the intelligence review, Zhao asked reprovingly, “What secrets are hidden in the suspicion-shrouded Fort Detrick and the over 200 U.S. bio-labs all over the world?” (Campbell 2021).

In the wake of Zhao’s remarks, Beijing formally submitted a letter to the WHO director general, reiterating that a leak from the Wuhan lab was highly implausible. The letter further pointed the finger at the U.S.: “If certain parties continue to believe that a lab leak cannot be dismissed, then, in the light of fairness and impartiality, they should also investigate the Fort Detrick base in the U.S. and the University of North Carolina” (Xinhua 2021). The letter was accompanied by a separate joint letter signed by over 25 million Chinese netizens to the WHO, demanding an investigation into Fort Detrick lab. In the same month, Chinese state broadcaster CGTN released results from a survey it conducted on the Weibo platform. It claimed that 96.5 percent of Chinese netizens called for an investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 virus in the U.S. (CGTN 2021).

Beijing resorted to obfuscation, in part due to the heightened stakes surrounding the origins issue. In June, former president Trump invoked the lab leak theory and demanded that China pay $10 trillion in “reparations” to U.S. for the damage caused by COVID-19 (Zitser 2021). That same month, a Hill-HarrisX survey revealed that 83 percent of voters would support U.S. action against China if evidence supported that COVID-19 originated in a Wuhan lab (The Hill 2021).

In October, the U.S. National Intelligence Council (NIC) unveiled its full declassified assessment on the origins of the pandemic. The report concluded that the virus was not developed as a biological weapon and stated, with low confidence, that the virus probably was not genetically engineered. The report considered both natural zoonosis and the lab leak as plausible hypotheses. However, it conceded that without new information, intelligence agencies would be unable to provide a more definitive judgment on whether the virus emerged from animal-to-human transmission or a lab leak (National Intelligence Council 2021).

By 2023, the lab leak theory had evolved from a fringe conspiracy theory to a widely accepted hypothesis across the U.S. political spectrum. An Economist/YouGov poll suggests that 66 percent of Americans, including 53 percent of Democrats and 85 percent of Republicans, say it is definitely or probably true that the virus causing COVID-19 emerged from a laboratory in China. This marks a notable shift from May 2020 when 54 percent thought the virus had its origins in a Chinese laboratory (Sanders and Frankovic 2023). In February 2023, dissatisfied with the NIC’s assessment of COVID-19 origins, House Republicans crated a new congressional panel to launch an investigation into the origins of the pandemic (Richards 2023). The same month, the U.S. Department of Energy updated its earlier stance on the origins of SARS-CoV-2, concluding “with low confidence” that a lab leak is the mostly likely source. Shortly thereafter, the FBI announced that it had come to the same findings “with moderate confidence” (Rabinowitz 2023).

While the NIC’s review appeared to be politically neutral, it criticized China for hindering investigations into origins of the pandemic. Unsurprisingly, Beijing lashed out against the report, dismissing it as “political and false” (Agence France-Presse 2021). To counter, it referenced the 2021 WHO-China joint study to argue a lab leak was extremely unlikely. However, according to George Gao, the former director of China CDC, the government did conduct some kind of formal investigation into the WIV. This suggests that Beijing might have taken the theory more seriously than their official statements indicated (Sudworth and Maybin 2023). In the meantime, Beijing asked Washington to “immediately halt its anti-science, nonsensical farce.” A People’s Daily editorial from March 2023 stated:

The continuous politicization, instrumentalization, and weaponization of the origins issue by the U.S. only hinder global scientific cooperation in tracing the source. It divides global efforts to unite against the pandemic and undermines global health governance mechanisms. We urge the U.S. to respect science and facts, stop the political manipulation of framing and smearing other countries, address promptly the legitimate concerns of the international community, and provide a responsible explanation to the people of the world. (Zhong 2023)

By urging the U.S. to “provide a responsible explanation,” Beijing was implicitly requesting Washington to disclose details about Fort Detrick and the biological labs it operates globally (BBC Chinese News 2023). Such demands only fueled conspiracy theories within China. A video that misleadingly portrayed a financial analyst’s speech as a testimony to the European Parliament gained significant traction. In it, he misinterpreted early coronavirus research and unrelated patents to falsely claim that U.S. scientists created the viruses responsible for SARS and COVID-19 as part of a scheme to boost vaccine profits (Jaramillo 2023). Additional fodder for such conspiracy theories came from Russia’s claims about Ukraine developing biological weapons with U.S. aid and a Taiwanese newspaper report suggesting U.S. demands for Taiwan's involvement in bio-weapon development (Chappell and Yousef 2022; Hioe 2023).

While the lab leak hypothesis has achieved these markers of prominence, ongoing scientific research continues to support natural zoonosis theory. The latter was bolstered by a new study of genetic samples from China, which seems to link the virus that caused COVID-19 to raccoon dogs (Mallapaty 2023). The findings were considered the “strongest evidence yet that an animal started the pandemic” (Wu 2023). Nonetheless, such discoveries have not undermined the foothold the lab leak theory has established in the U.S.-China relationship. In May 2023, the office of U.S. Senator Marco Rubio released a 328-page report, compiling what it termed “a mountain of circumstantial evidence” suggesting the pandemic came from a lab leak in Wuhan (The Office of U.S. Senator Marco Rubio 2023).

Implications for U.S.-China Relations

Unraveling the origins of a major disease outbreak is anything but easy. It took researchers 13 years after the 2002–2003 SARS epidemic to definitively conclude that bats were the original hosts of the virus, which was then transmitted to humans through an intermediate host, possibly the civet (Cyranoski 2017). Even though the probe into the origins of SARS was primarily conducted by Chinese scientists, it did not face the same level of politicization as the investigation into COVID-19 would later encounter. China did not question the narrative that SARS originated in Guangdong province, and despite months of cover-up and inaction by China, the U.S. government did not exploit the situation for political advantage. This unfolded in an era when the U.S. sought to engage China, and China aspired to integrate into the outside world. Both countries were able to compartmentalize the impact of strategic competition in favor of expanded cooperation in public health. Indeed, the SARS crisis motivated both countries to collaborate on addressing a broad spectrum of global health issues, from HIV/AIDS to international public health emergencies. This led to the period between 2002 and 2016 being regarded as “the golden age of cooperation” in public health (Huang 2021d).

The dynamics changed drastically during the COVID-19 pandemic. As the U.S. increasingly perceived China as its biggest geopolitical threat, China considered the U.S. as the primary obstacle to its global ascendancy. This escalating strategic rivalry and deep-seated mutual distrust poisoned the environment for U.S.-China cooperation during the pandemic. In early 2020, Beijing did not respond to repeated offers from the U.S. to send experts to China to help with the outbreak (Geimann 2020). Driven by geopolitical competition, both sides felt compelled to politicize the origins probe. China viewed the probe as a challenge to the narrative touting its “institutional advantages” (tizhi youshi) and asserting its global leadership once it emerged as an early victor in the battle against the pandemic. This global ambition prompted Beijing to reconcile the tensions between the new pandemic narrative and China’s role as ground zero for a catastrophic outbreak. In the U.S., the belief that China was the origin of a devastating pandemic, that it had misled the world by withholding critical disease-related information, and that it had attempted to manipulate the narrative of the outbreak for strategic gains, reinforced concerns about China’s threat to global health security and the rules-based international order.

The investigation into the origins of the virus was further compounded by the domestic politics in both countries. In China, the campaign against COVID-19 involved amplified efforts to prioritize power and control over effective governance and even science (Wu 2023). A transparent, independent, and science-based international investigation is at odds with the authoritarian secrecy of the political system and challenges one of Beijing’s core interests: the perpetual rule of the Communist Party. As Beijing feels increasingly insecure, it has less incentive than ever to allow a timely, transparent, and science-based investigation of the WIV. On the U.S. side, blaming the Wuhan lab was part of a broader strategy to deflect blame. The lab leak theory did not receive official support until the Trump administration sought a scapegoat for its denial and mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic. It was initially unpopular among scientists and Democrats, partly because it was linked to Republican politicians. Paradoxically, the resurgence of the theory under the Biden administration has exacerbated the politicization of the origins investigation. Trapped in a political tug-of-war between the U.S. and China, a comprehensive and independent investigation became even less likely.

The disagreement over the origins of COVID-19 significantly undermined the mutual trust essential for a constructive bilateral relationship, as evidenced by the barrage of accusations exchanged by officials from both sides. While the Trump administration highlighted China as the origin of COVID-19, Beijing felt compelled to create a counter-narrative to the prevailing thesis that the virus originated in Wuhan. Chinese officials, diplomats, and state media insinuated, without concrete evidence, that the virus might have been introduced to China by the U.S. Although the U.S. might frame its criticism as a counter to Chinese disinformation (Bump 2020),China perceived U.S. accusations as baseless and driven by ulterior motives. Instead of fostering trust and confidence, each nation seemed intent on viewing the other as the transgressor. Consequently, conspiracy theories flourished in both countries. In China, anecdotal data suggests a large segment of the populace believes the virus was engineered in the U.S., possibly with military involvement.

The blame game between the U.S. and China over the pandemic’s origins, exacerbated by the widespread disinformation and deliberate obfuscation, not only reflects the ongoing geopolitical rivalry between the two nations but also contributes to the downward spiral in the bilateral relations. While the U.S. advocated for a transparent, scientific investigation, China interpreted such demands as thinly veiled accusations, deepening the trust deficit. This mistrust impeded the WHO’s investigative efforts and further intensified the U.S.-China rivalry. From the U.S. standpoint, China’s lack of transparency and cooperation in the investigation reinforced the belief that China is not a reliable or responsible global player. Conversely, China viewed the U.S. focus on the lab leak theory and its economic and technological wars on China as evidence of U.S. determination to thwart China’s ascent, resorting to rumors and slander.

Finally, the lab leak theory—regardless of its validity as a line of inquiry—stokes anti-American sentiments in China and fuels anti-Asian sentiments in the U.S. This only further erodes public support for cooperative endeavors between the two nations. Negative perceptions between the two countries are already pervasive. A significant majority of U.S. adults (83 percent) harbor unfavorable views of China, with 77 percent believing that China disregards the interests of nations like the U.S. This sentiment is reciprocated in China: a 2021 survey of over 2,000 Chinese respondents revealed that 75 percent held negative opinions of the U.S. (Liu et al. 2023).

Foreign policies mirror this antagonistic public sentiment. Fueled by misinformation and disinformation campaigns and obfuscation tactics, the mutual accusations regarding COVID-19 have further undermined the public’s desire for collaboration in both countries. In the U.S., Congress has essentially made China's cooperation in the pandemic origins probe a prerequisite for cooperation in other important areas of public health. Consequently, the partnership between U.S. research institutions and the WIV quickly became a lightning rod. In June 2023, the U.S. suspended federal funding to the Wuhan lab, citing the lab’s failure to provide essential documents pertaining to alleged biosafety protocol violations (Reuters 2023). This move is probably the first instance where the U.S. government has actually halted funding to a research institution due to suspected breaches of grant biosafety protocols. However, this decision may inadvertently push China toward greater autonomy in compliance, thus diminishing Washington's influence in this realm (Wong 2023).

The U.S. move also casts a shadow over other U.S.-China research collaborations. Concerns about potential accusations of illicit activities might deter U.S.-China scientific partnerships, even in areas perceived as less contentious, such as public health infrastructure development. It is worth noting that U.S.-China collaboration is less common in the healthcare and biotechnology sectors compared to fields like telecom, nanoscience, and energy (Hao and Hua 2023).

Conclusion

The quest to uncover the origins of COVID-19 is of critical importance. Victims of the disease and their families deserve an explanation on how the pandemic started, and establishing its genesis is pivotal for implementing targeted and effective measures against similar threats in the future. However, this quest has transcended the realm of pure scientific inquiry, becoming deeply enmeshed in the intricate web of U.S.-China geopolitical rivalry and internal politics in both nations. To the U.S., China’s perceived lack of transparency surrounding the pandemic’s beginnings has bolstered the credibility of the lab leak theory and reinforced a narrative of mistrust and skepticism toward China’s role in the pandemic. Conversely, China views the U.S. accusations and the emphasis on the lab leak theory as efforts to contain its rise and tarnish its international image. Amid this storm of allegations and conspiracy theories, the two countries are ensnared in a vortex of mutual suspicion, misinformation/disinformation, and diplomatic wrangling. This issue only stands to grow more volatile as the U.S. approaches the 2024 presidential election cycle. With presumptive Republican nominee Trump staking out tough-on-China campaign promises, Biden will come under intense pressure to adopt similar measures to avoid looking “soft” on China. These dynamics in the political environment are likely to make any public health cooperation on COVID-19’s origins a non-starter in the near term.

While the politicization of the origins issue clouds the path to understanding the pandemic's genesis, the ensuing lack of mutual trust also erodes what was formerly the bedrock of U.S.-China cooperation, particularly in vital areas like public health. Bilateral collaboration, especially in critical sectors like healthcare, biotechnology, and scientific research, are at risk. This rift between the world’s two major powers imperils the global response to pressing challenges, including pandemic preparedness and climate change.

In sum, the politicization of the quest to determine COVID-19’s origins has exacted a heavy toll on U.S.-China relations. For the sake of global health security, it is imperative that both nations find a way to separate scientific inquiry from political animus, reigniting a collaborative spirit that the world so desperately needs.