“Eight of us are saying let's talk, and Democrats are sitting here like middle schoolers saying no, we don't.
Back to stories
Fauci Invokes the Fifth More Than 100 Times at Senate COVID Hearing as Rand Paul Moves to Hold Him in Contempt
July 29, 2026
Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination more than 100 times during a roughly three-hour hearing before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on July 29, 2026. Committee Chairman Rand Paul (R-KY), who has referred Fauci to the Justice Department and accuses him of making false statements to Congress and concealing NIH involvement in coronavirus research in Wuhan, called the hearing; Fauci denies the allegations. Fauci's lawyer, David Schertler, described the proceeding as an "obsessive vendetta," and Fauci said the sole purpose was to make him say something that would vindicate Paul's public pledges to put him behind bars. Republicans hold an 8-7 majority on the panel, and several used their time to attack Fauci for declining to answer. Ranking Member Gary Peters (D-MI) called the hearing a partisan exercise. Public health experts warned the episode could have a chilling effect on federal public health staffing. On Tuesday, August 4, 2026, Paul released the text of a contempt resolution against Fauci and scheduled a committee vote for Thursday morning. Paul's position is that Fauci's Fifth Amendment protection no longer applied because of his presidential pardon, and that Fauci waived any remaining privilege by delivering opening testimony — a ruling Paul made from the chair during the hearing before ordering Fauci to answer and warning him about contempt.
13
Statements Recorded
See what your representatives said?
13 Statements
“[Hassan called Paul's account of the Democrats' position] a mischaracterization [and said senators should pursue a] good-faith bipartisan approach to obtain this information.
“I think everybody should be for transparency, whether a Republican or a Democrat. … If she's taking orders from above, it's the person who gave the orders that needs to be either reprimanded or chastised. [Paul spoke after committee Democrats blocked a grant of immunity for Fauci's former assistant, 8-7, short of the two-thirds required.]
“Could his plea involve implicating Anthony Fauci?
“One of Fauci’s fall guys, denied the privilege of an autopen pardon, has pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit fraud. I want to know who his co-conspirators were and what they knew. What does Dr. Fauci have to say about this?
“The question is whether a witness, who has received the benefit of a sweeping federal pardon, can be ordered by this committee to answer questions — and then defy that order without consequence. We only have one question: Whether to hold a witness responsible for his contempt toward Congress.
“[The contempt referral is] very unlikely ever to be pursued by the Department of Justice [and] almost certainly never going to be approved by the court because it violates basic constitutional rights.
“Dr. Fauci appeared under subpoena and invoked the Fifth Amendment to refuse answering questions. During the hearing, I ruled that the Fifth Amendment did not apply because of the pardon, and that Fauci had waived any remaining privilege by giving opening testimony. I ordered him to answer and warned him about contempt, yet he still refused. That is obstruction of a congressional investigation. The Committee will act accordingly.
“This testimony is from Anthony Fauci. This is not a game with his lawyers. There will be consequences for refusing to answer.
“Well, nothing says honesty like taking the 5th, huh, doc? Yeah, well, silence is admission.
“The hearing is a partisan exercise.
“Your primary concern was hiding the fact that you had approved funding for this dangerous research. Did his actions lead to the largest man-made plague in history?
“On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The only conclusion that I can reach is that the sole reason he is calling me before this committee is to get me to say something, anything, that could vindicate his repeated public pledges that I end up, in his words, quote, behind bars, unquote.