Congress seeks GAO probe into alleged U.S. tick-based bioweapons research

A newly filed congressional amendment directs the Government Accountability Office to investigate whether federal agencies conducted experiments using pathogen-laden ticks as tools of war, a line of inquiry that has long stirred debate among scientists and lawmakers. The measure, introduced by New Jersey Republican Rep. Chris Smith, would require a broad review of projects by the U.S. military, the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Agriculture conducted between 1945 and 1972 involving bacteria families linked to tick-borne illnesses, including Spirochaetales and Rickettsiales.

The amendment represents a revival of Smith’s efforts to push for congressional scrutiny of potential bioweapons programs tied to ticks and other vectors. Smith, who co-chairs the Congressional Lyme and Tick-Borne Disease Caucus, cited New Jersey’s high infection rates and the presence of military personnel at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst as motivations for seeking public accountability. “The hundreds of thousands of New Jerseyans suffering from Lyme disease deserve to know the truth about the origins of their illness,” he said.

The questions come amid persistent, though contested, public speculation about whether the United States conducted research on ticks as potential bioweapons during the Cold War. Health and Human Services Secretary RFK Jr. has publicly suggested that Lyme disease may have emerged from a failed bioweapons program in the 1970s, tying claims to research at Plum Island, New York. Scientists have repeatedly rejected those allegations, saying evidence points to the pathogen’s presence in North America long before the 20th century and urging caution against unverified theories.

Lyme disease, caused by the bacterium Borrelia burgdorferi, is reported in tens of thousands of cases annually in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cites 30,000 to 40,000 confirmed cases each year, but federal health experts acknowledge that as many as 476,000 infections may occur annually and go undiagnosed. The amended proposal would not only examine whether military or civilian agencies engaged in weaponization experiments but also clarify how past research may have influenced current understanding and management of Lyme disease risk.

Smith’s move is a continuation of an effort he first launched in 2019 and then again in 2021. Those proposals passed the House but stalled in the Senate, leaving unresolved questions about any government role in the alleged spread of tick-borne diseases. The current amendment would task the GAO with auditing archival records, program summaries and internal communications from the relevant agencies to determine whether any studies involved deliberate dissemination or weaponization of pathogen-laden ticks and, if so, to assess scope, intent and impact.

In addition to the Plum Island narrative, the notes accompanying the debate cite Fort Detrick in Maryland as another site of interest to investigators pursuing the broader question of whether secret research touched on tick-borne pathogens. Plum Island, home to the Plum Island Animal Disease Center, has long been the subject of public controversy over whether it conducted Lyme-related research. The Department of Homeland Security has stated that the Plum Island facility “does not and has not performed research on Lyme disease.” The episode gained renewed attention in 2024 when RFK Jr. reiterated claims about ticks and disease at Plum Island on his podcast, though he said, during a 2025 Senate confirmation hearing, that he never believed Lyme disease was engineered as a weapon, while emphasizing the need to follow evidence wherever it leads.

The amendment’s supporters argue that a formal GAO review would either substantiate longstanding concerns or, alternatively, help close a chapter on theories that have divided public health and national security perspectives for decades. Opponents, by contrast, caution against drawing conclusions from historical conjecture or from disputed accounts in books that have circulated in recent years about Cold War-era experiments. In presenting the measure, Smith framed the issue as one of transparency for communities most affected by Lyme disease and for service members stationed at facilities in the Northeast.

Beyond the political debate, experts emphasize that accurate historical records and independent verification are essential to resolving whether there was any official program that sought to weaponize ticks. If the GAO finds no evidence of such programs, supporters say the public record would be clarified and confidence restored. If evidence emerges of formal, approved experiments, lawmakers would face questions about oversight, safety, ethical considerations and public health implications.

The outcome could influence not only legislative trajectories but also public health policy and the way future investigations into tick-borne diseases are framed. As the debate unfolds, public officials and health professionals alike stress the importance of basing conclusions on documented data and peer-reviewed research rather than speculation or anecdotal accounts. The political dynamic remains sensitive: Lyme disease continues to affect a broad swath of communities, and the demand for accountability intersects with ongoing concerns about how best to prevent, detect and treat tick-borne illnesses.