go to c-span.org for our coronavirus coverage. use the interactive gallery of maps to follow the cases. go to c-span.org/coronavirus. >> this headline at washington post.com, biden asked the intelligence community to we develop intelligence efforts.

>> that is far from inclusive. but in ordered intelligence officials -- biden ordered intelligence fish -- intelligence officials to file a report. eddie minsky is following the story. she covers it for the post. thanks for being with us. >> good morning. steve: that may begin with the statement yesterday. has significant was that from the president? >> there was a significant statement on a number of different fronts. the first piece of it was that biden was really reversing a position that his white house has been quite in on, which had been that the world health organization should take the lead in investigating the origins of the coronavirus. a problem with that has been the who had sales in the past to do

that. and it's seen as being quite deferential to china. it was a little bit like having them in -- the foxes investigating the henhouse. there were other parts of the statement that were remarkable. one is a debate that is unsettled. typically, presidents don't reveal those discussions. which the intelligence is categorized as. that was odd, too. politically, the president took a veiled dig at president trump in his statement, sort of saying that biden, as a candidate, has been urging more transparency in

from china, urging the trump administration to push china harder to let investigators on the ground there. and sort of making that point, putting some sort of reminder out in the air that biden had wanted the trump administration to push china at a time where china -- trump was saying positive things about china. steve: let me follow-up on that because the president said there were specific questions for china, the chinese government, and president xi jinping saying the investigation is now closed. what tools, blood pressure can the west put on china to reopen its investigation, specifically to find out what answers they need with regard to the lab in wuhan, china? >> well, there are a number of tools that can be used. i think there are covert tools, right? one of them is to respect our sanctions, use diplomacy,

pushing the chinese leadership to be more open, using those methods. but one of the really striking aspects of the statement that the president put out was he directed the intelligence community to analyze -- and this is a keyword -- and collect more information about what happened on the ground in china. and the intelligence sources i've been talking to have said the word collapse is eagerly -- is -- collect is particularly significant because the president is urging them to do more than spying on china, which is something we obviously do and don't typically talk about. certainly, doesn't come from a presidential statement. steve: we are talking with annie lansky. let me go back to you reporting front page of the newspaper and online, "the origin of the deadliest pandemic and recent

memory carries enormous implications for public health and beyond. if investigators point to china, one of the most powerful and sensitive countries in the world, it could act night a global diplomatic -- ignite a global diplomatic firestorm. a definitive finding could remain elusive and spite -- despite the president's directive. wednesday's move implies he is growing more concerned. despite renewed interest, no significant new information emerged in recent weeks. they urge the president to ensure intelligence officials provide clear evidence in their upcoming report, which they are typically reluctant to do." so, fill in some of the pieces in that expert from your story this month -- excerpt from your story this morning. annie: yeah, i think one of the keys to remember here, there isn't any new development that is fueling this flurry and this renewed attention on the theory

that this virus could have come from a lab in wuhan. it's not as if a major scoop has been had. what has happened, and this is just sort of unusual in big stories like this, but what has happened is a lot of facts that have existed in the world have been kind of assembled. i have to say the wall street journal, to give them credit, has done a really good job the last few days putting together a lot of information that has already been out there into a sort of very clear narrative that shows more of a possibility that this wuhan lab could have been the culprit. and also, scientists, quite credible, had early on dismissed these theories. but these scientists also reassessed their views. and so that's different from it

fast changing. i guess the warning that many people i'm talking to would say is that look, we're not -- the fact seven changed. the political dynamic has. some of the people i was talking to yesterday, were quoted in the story, were saying that the trump white house just lacked so much credibility in so many areas that when they were pushing this wuhan lab theory, it fell on deaf ears because so many of the other statements coming out of that administration were sort of demonstratably false. and so there was sort of a reluctance for people to sort through what might be true and what might not be. and what has changed is trump is no longer in power, and that has sort of provided a little more space, consideration of this theory. and the other piece of it, too,

is this existence last year, as this was circulating -- there are a lot of other things going on and the country was in the middle of the pandemic and there was concern about the immediate future and the immediate crisis. and now that we are emerging a little bit from it, there is also more reflection about ok, now, how exactly did we end up in this position?