Senate Panel Votes to Hold Fauci in Contempt Over COVID Hearing

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted along party lines Thursday to hold Dr. Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions at a hearing on his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, setting up a referral to the Department of Justice for potential prosecution, according to AP News.

The 8-5 vote came one week after Fauci invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination 111 times during a July 29 hearing before the committee. The resolution refers the matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C., led by Jeanine Pirro.

The Fifth Amendment Dispute

Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, the committee chairman who pressed for the contempt finding, argued that Fauci’s constitutional protection did not apply because he received a pre-emptive pardon from former President Joe Biden in January 2025 covering acts from 2014 through January 19, 2025. “Dr. Fauci faced no risk of federal prosecution,” Paul said at the outset of Thursday’s hearing. “All he had to do was tell the truth.”

Fauci, in a statement last week explaining his decision to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights, said he had good reason to fear criminal charges given what he described as Paul’s determination “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.”

Democrats who unanimously opposed the contempt resolution argued that Fauci had a well-founded fear of self-incrimination, pointing to state-level prosecutions that the pardon does not cover and the Trump administration’s questioning of the validity of Biden’s pardons due to his use of an autopen. Sen. Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire said the goal was “to wait for Dr. Fauci to make any kind of misstatement and then have a weaponized Department of Justice file criminal charges for that new statement that would not have been covered by the pardon.”

Legal and Procedural Questions

The case raises novel legal questions about whether a presidential pardon eliminates Fifth Amendment protections, and whether a committee can bypass the full Senate in transmitting a contempt referral. Paul has said he intends to send the referral directly to the Justice Department rather than first to the full Senate, where the 60 votes needed to pass the resolution are seen as unlikely. Democrats have questioned the legal validity of such a maneuver.

Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan, the committee’s top Democrat, warned that punishing a witness for exercising a constitutional right would complicate future congressional oversight. “If this committee now seeks to punish a witness for asserting their constitutionally protected Fifth Amendment rights, future witnesses will argue that appearing before Congress exposes them to punishment regardless of whether they comply with a subpoena and invoke a constitutional protection,” he said.

Legal experts note the case could set an important precedent. As BBC News reported, Mark Osler, a St. Thomas University law professor and pardon power expert, said: “This is an important case because I think a lot of people anticipate that President Trump is going to issue similar pardons to many people in his administration who will end up being called before Congress, and the precedent here is important.”

Fauci’s Defense

Fauci’s lawyer, David Schertler, called the vote a “crude political stunt” and accused Paul of pursuing a “personal vendetta” against his client. “Dr. Fauci has committed no crime — and Senator Paul knows it,” Schertler said in a statement. “It is shameful and wrong that Senator Paul is abusing his power by trying to weaponize the Justice Department against an honorable public servant.”

If convicted of a contempt of Congress charge, Fauci could face up to one year in prison and a fine of $100,000. However, a referral from Congress does not compel prosecutors to act, and contempt prosecutions are historically rare — the most recent convictions were Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro in 2024, as The Guardian noted.

Broader Investigation

The contempt vote is part of a broader Republican investigation into Fauci’s handling of the pandemic. The day before the vote, the Department of Health and Human Services provided a copy of Fauci’s phone to a Senate subcommittee led by Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. Republicans also released several of Fauci’s diary entries before the hearing, which reportedly show private doubts about COVID origins but contain no “smoking gun” proving he intentionally misled the public.

Three state attorneys general have also subpoenaed Fauci, and the pardon does not shield him from state-level prosecutions. The vote comes ahead of the November 2026 midterm elections, adding a political dimension to the proceedings.

What Happens Next

The key questions going forward are whether the Justice Department will pursue the contempt referral, whether U.S. Attorney Pirro will decide to investigate or prosecute Fauci, and what the Senate subcommittee’s investigation of Fauci’s phone will reveal. As Al Jazeera reported, the outcome could have implications beyond Fauci himself, potentially shaping how Congress handles testimony from previously pardoned witnesses in the future.