Which administration was in power when the US began funding EcoHealth Alliance via NIH and USAID

1. The documentary trail points to 2014 as the start date, under Obama

Federal documentation reviewed by the Government Accountability Office and auditors traces NIH and USAID grant activity and subawards involving EcoHealth Alliance and Wuhan institutions to 2014 (GAO report covering calendar years 2014–2021), noting specific subawards that occurred in October 2014 and later in 2016 ^{[1] [3]}. Contemporary fact‑checking and reporting likewise record that the NIH awarded a grant in 2014 to EcoHealth to study bat coronaviruses, from which a portion was passed to collaborators including the Wuhan Institute of Virology ^[2].

2. What “began funding” means in the public record

The agencies’ relationships are characterized in the sources as multi‑layered: NIH awarded research grants to EcoHealth in 2014 and EcoHealth issued subawards to Chinese partners; USAID funded complementary capacity‑building work that also flowed through EcoHealth at points in the 2014–2016 timeframe ^{[1] [4]}. GAO and EcoHealth’s own statements frame these as distinct but complementary awards—NIH focused on research, USAID on capacity and surveillance—both active in the mid‑2010s ^{[3] [4]}.

3. Later political and administrative changes do not change the start date

While the Trump administration flagged and ultimately led to the premature cancellation of an NIH award in 2020 and intensified scrutiny of EcoHealth’s WIV ties (reports and congressional actions in 2020), and while Biden‑era officials later suspended and proposed barring further funding in 2024, these are downstream actions; they do not alter that the grants and subawards in question were initiated in 2014 under the Obama administration ^{[5] [6] [7]}.

4. Oversight reviews and audits confirm timeline but raise monitoring concerns

Federal oversight products—an HHS OIG audit and the GAO study—document the grant timeline beginning in 2014 and criticize NIH’s monitoring and EcoHealth’s record‑keeping, noting problems such as EcoHealth’s inability to obtain certain documentation from Wuhan partners and NIH deficiencies in oversight ^{[8] [1]}. Those reports substantiate when the funding relationships began and explain why later administrations faced a body of unresolved oversight questions ^{[8] [1]}.

5. Political narratives, contested claims, and caution about sources

Partisan and alternative outlets have amplified different aspects—some emphasize initial grants to suggest long‑running, reckless research programs, while others stress procedural failures rather than proven scientific malfeasance ^{[9] [10]}. Official EcoHealth statements and GAO/OIG work present a more procedural framing: EcoHealth says the NIH and USAID awards were separate, complementary programs and that it cooperated with audits, while watchdog reports document lapses in oversight ^{[4] [3] [8]}. Where claims exceed what the cited audits and federal records establish—such as assertions that the funding “created SARS‑CoV‑2”—those claims are not supported by the primary sources provided here ^{[11] [2]}.

6. Bottom line with provenance and caveats

Primary government records and federal audits place the beginning of NIH/USAID funding flows through EcoHealth that reached Wuhan partners in 2014, during the Obama administration; subsequent actions—grant suspensions, terminations, congressional investigations, and administrative bans—occurred under the Trump and Biden administrations as oversight questions and political scrutiny intensified ^{[1] [2] [5] [7]}. The reporting and audits document timing and oversight problems but do not, within these sources, establish definitive conclusions about causation for later events beyond administrative and investigatory responses ^{[8] [1]}.