Senate Panel Votes to Hold Anthony Fauci in Contempt, Setting Up High-Stakes DOJ Decision

A Republican-led Senate committee has voted to hold former top U.S. infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress, escalating a years-long political battle over the federal government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic and placing the matter in the hands of the U.S. Justice Department.

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee approved the contempt resolution in an 8-7 party-line vote, following Anthony Fauci’s refusal to answer lawmakers’ questions during a hearing last week. Instead, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

The vote does not automatically result in criminal charges but begins a legal process that could test the limits of congressional oversight and constitutional protections.

Rand Paul Sends Referral to Justice Department

Committee Chairman Sen. Rand Paul announced that he would immediately transmit a contempt referral to the Justice Department, arguing that Anthony Fauci improperly relied on the Fifth Amendment because former President Joe Biden had already granted him a broad preemptive pardon covering actions related to the pandemic.

Later on Thursday, the Justice Department confirmed it had received the referral and stated it would review the matter before determining its next steps.

Paul maintains that the committee requires Fauci’s testimony to better understand the government’s pandemic response and to determine whether legislative reforms are needed for future public health emergencies.

He argued that congressional contempt powers exist specifically for situations in which witnesses refuse to cooperate with lawful investigations.

Why Republicans Say Fauci Should Testify

Republican lawmakers have spent years scrutinizing Fauci’s role during the COVID-19 crisis, particularly regarding public health guidance, vaccine policies and the origins of the coronavirus.

Paul has repeatedly accused Fauci of misleading Congress about research funding and pandemic-related decisions, allegations that Fauci has consistently denied.

Before last week’s hearing, Republican investigators released thousands of pages of Fauci’s government diary entries and other internal records. While the documents offered insights into internal deliberations during the pandemic, they did not provide conclusive evidence supporting allegations of misconduct.

During the hearing, Fauci declined to answer more than 100 questions, saying through his attorneys that doing so could expose him to legal risk despite the presidential pardon.

Democrats Question the Process

Democratic members of the committee strongly opposed the contempt vote, warning that bypassing traditional Senate procedures could weaken congressional oversight in future investigations.

Ordinarily, contempt resolutions approved by a Senate committee proceed to the full Senate before being certified to the Justice Department.

Rand Paul has argued that he can transmit his recommendation directly to federal prosecutors while leaving open the possibility of seeking a Senate-wide vote later.

Legal analysts note that such an approach departs from longstanding congressional practice and could become a procedural issue if prosecutors decide to pursue charges.

Legal Questions Remain Unresolved

The case raises complex constitutional questions about the relationship between presidential pardons and Fifth Amendment protections.

Republicans argue that because Joe Biden’s pardon shields Anthony Fauci from prosecution for pandemic-era federal offenses committed before January 20, 2025, he no longer faced meaningful legal exposure and therefore could not invoke the Fifth Amendment.

However, many constitutional scholars disagree.

Legal experts note that pardons generally do not protect individuals from future crimes, including possible perjury if false statements are made under oath after receiving a pardon. Others argue that unresolved legal risks could still justify invoking constitutional protections against self-incrimination.

If prosecutors eventually pursue contempt charges, courts would likely need to determine whether Fauci’s assertion of the Fifth Amendment was legally valid.

Fauci’s Legal Team Rejects Contempt Vote

Anthony Fauci’s attorney, David Schertler, criticized the committee’s action, describing it as politically motivated retaliation against a witness exercising constitutional rights.

The legal team maintains that Fauci committed no crime and lawfully relied on the Fifth Amendment based on legal advice.

Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has taken a more measured public stance. Although he has criticized Fauci’s handling of the pandemic in recent years, Trump has acknowledged Biden’s pardon and has not publicly called for criminal prosecution.

What Happens Next?

The Justice Department must now determine whether the referral warrants further action.

Even if prosecutors choose to proceed, any criminal case would likely face significant legal challenges involving constitutional protections, congressional authority and the scope of presidential pardons.

For now, the committee’s vote marks the latest chapter in one of Washington’s longest-running political disputes over the government’s pandemic response—one that could ultimately be decided in federal court rather than on Capitol Hill.