On July 29, 2026, Dr. Anthony Fauci sat in front of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and declined to answer its questions. For nearly three hours, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) gave the same basic answer: on the advice of his lawyers, he was invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. News outlets reported that he did this more than 100 times. The committee's chairman, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, later put the number at 111.
It was a striking moment. Fauci had spent close to four decades as one of the most visible scientists in the federal government. By his own count he had testified before or briefed congressional committees more than 200 times. He had never before refused to answer Congress on Fifth Amendment grounds. And he did it while holding a broad preemptive pardon that President Joe Biden granted him in the last hours of his term in January 2025.
This article explains what happened at that hearing and in the three months that followed, through the end of October 2026. It covers the committee's contempt vote and its unusual referral to the Justice Department, the state attorneys general who opened their own investigations, and the legal fight over what a pardon does and does not do. It also walks through the older accusations that brought Fauci and Paul to this point: the funding of coronavirus research in Wuhan, China, through EcoHealth Alliance; the debate over whether COVID-19 came from a lab or from nature; the "Proximal Origin" paper; Paul's earlier criminal referrals; and the public-records case against a former Fauci adviser, David Morens.
A note on how to read this piece. Many of the claims below are serious accusations. Fauci has not been charged with any crime, federal or state, as of the end of October 2026. He has denied wrongdoing. Where this article describes an accusation, it says who made it and what the other side says in response. Pleading the Fifth is a constitutional right, and, as courts and legal scholars have long said, it is not an admission of guilt.
The Short Version
- July 29, 2026: Fauci appears under subpoena before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, chaired by Rand Paul. He invokes the Fifth Amendment and answers no substantive questions about COVID-19 or its origins.
- Before the hearing: Paul released more than 1,000 pages (FactCheck.org put it at more than 1,100) of Fauci's private, day-by-day diary notes covering December 2019 to December 2022. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said the material was retrieved from government computer servers.
- The pardon dispute: Paul argues that Biden's January 2025 pardon means Fauci faces no federal prosecution for the covered period, so he has no right to plead the Fifth about it. Fauci's lawyer says the privilege is valid. Many legal experts say the pardon does not reach future conduct (such as false testimony in 2026) or state law, so the privilege likely still applies.
- August 5, 2026: The attorneys general of Florida, West Virginia and Louisiana announce a joint investigation. Florida issues an investigative subpoena for Fauci's documents.
- August 6, 2026: The committee votes along party lines to hold Fauci in contempt of Congress. Instead of seeking a full Senate vote, Paul sends the matter directly to the Justice Department. The department confirms it received the referral.
- Mid-August 2026: David Morens, a former senior adviser to Fauci, pleads guilty in federal court in Maryland to one count of conspiracy related to concealing records from public-records requests. Fauci is not charged in that case.
- Late August 2026: The Wall Street Journal reports that the contempt effort has stalled, with administration officials questioning whether the procedure was sound.
- September 23, 2026: The committee fails to approve a resolution seeking court-ordered immunity for a former longtime Fauci assistant who also invoked the Fifth.
- As of October 31, 2026: No public report shows the Justice Department charging Fauci, and no state has filed charges against him.
Who Is Anthony Fauci?
Anthony Fauci led NIAID, one of the institutes inside the National Institutes of Health (NIH), for nearly four decades. He became known nationally for his work on HIV/AIDS in the 1980s and later served as an adviser to multiple presidents. During the COVID-19 pandemic he was a member of the White House coronavirus task force under President Donald Trump and then chief medical adviser to President Biden. He stepped down as NIAID director on December 31, 2022.
For supporters, Fauci is a public servant who helped guide the country through a frightening pandemic and helped speed vaccine development. For critics, he is the face of pandemic policies they consider harmful, including school closures, lockdowns and mandates. He is also, in the eyes of critics such as Paul, an official who they say misled the public about U.S.-funded research in China and about the possibility that the virus leaked from a lab.
Fauci has consistently rejected the most serious of those charges. At a House hearing in June 2024 he called the suggestion that he tried to hide a lab origin "simply preposterous" and said, "I always kept an open mind to the different possibilities." He has also described receiving death threats and stalking that required him to have protective services.
Who Is Rand Paul, and Why Is This Personal?
Rand Paul is a Republican senator from Kentucky and, like Fauci, a physician (Paul is an ophthalmologist). Since 2021 he has been Fauci's most persistent critic in Congress. Their public clashes go back to Senate hearings in May and July 2021, when Paul pressed Fauci on whether NIH had funded "gain-of-function" research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
After Republicans took control of the Senate, Paul became chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which gave him subpoena power and a platform to pursue the issue. He has said publicly that he wants Fauci held accountable and has repeatedly asked the Justice Department to prosecute him.
Fauci's side views that history as the context for the 2026 hearing. In his opening statement, Fauci accused Paul of an "obvious obsession with calling for my prosecution" and described it as "an unhinged obsession." He said the only reason he had been summoned was to get him to say "something, anything" that could support Paul's public statements that Fauci would end up "behind bars." His lawyer, David Schertler, put out a statement describing what he called "an intense and seemingly pathological course of retribution, revenge, and obsession," and called Paul's accusations "false and disgraceful."
Paul, for his part, has framed the inquiry as legitimate oversight of how the government handled the pandemic and what officials knew about the virus's origins.
The Diary Release Before the Hearing
In the days before the hearing, Paul's committee released a large set of Fauci's private notes. CBS News described them as more than 1,000 pages of journal entries running from December 2019 to December 2022, the period from just before the U.S. public health emergency until Fauci left NIAID. FactCheck.org said Paul released "more than 1,100 pages" of day-by-day recaps four days before the hearing.
How the committee got the diary is itself a matter of dispute. Paul's office did not respond to a CBS News question about it. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said on Fox News that the entries had been retrieved from government computer servers in recent months. Reuters later reported that HHS staff gave the diary to Paul. Fauci's side was not notified before publication, according to reporting at the time, and Fauci declined to comment to CBS News.
What the entries say, according to each side
Paul's main argument from the diary concerns a January 2020 entry. According to CBS and FactCheck.org, Fauci wrote on January 26, 2020, that "the first infection was in early December and was not connected to the market," and that "Now we know the market was not the source, it was the amplifier." Paul said this showed Fauci "already was acknowledging that the virus didn't originate in the marketplace," and he accused Fauci of saying one thing privately while publicly treating the lab-leak idea as implausible. He called that dishonesty "really astounding."
FactCheck.org called Paul's reading misleading. It pointed out that the same entry also says, "Having said that, somewhere the virus jumped from animals to humans." In other words, the note described the Wuhan market as a place where the virus spread, not as proof that the virus came from a lab. FactCheck.org also found that Fauci's diary consistently favored a natural origin as most likely and that his public statements in early 2020 did not differ much from his private notes.
Other entries drew attention for different reasons. CBS reported a May 2021 entry in which Fauci wrote, "I am calling for a thorough investigation," after noting that no one, including himself, was 100% certain of the origin. Some entries discuss his relationship with Trump; one records Fauci writing that "POTUS seems to be enamored of me even though I am taking the spotlight away from him." Others describe his conflict with Paul, including a July 2021 entry in which he recounted telling Paul that "if anybody is lying here it is he."
Science magazine reported that the released documents contained no direct evidence supporting claims that Fauci funded dangerous research or covered up the virus's origins. Paul's committee and its allies read the material very differently, and Florida's attorney general later cited the entries as part of the basis for a state investigation.
The Hearing Itself: July 29, 2026
The hearing was tense from start to finish. Fauci gave an opening statement in which he explained his decision. He said he had testified or briefed Congress more than 200 times, which, he said, showed his respect for "legitimate congressional oversight." He said it pained him to invoke the Fifth Amendment. Then, after nearly every question, he declined to answer.
Paul opened by accusing Fauci of aiding and abetting the COVID lockdowns and said he "did not tell the American people the full story." Republican senators pressed hard. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri accused Fauci of seeking power and profiting from celebrity. Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio demanded that Fauci apologize to Americans penalized over masks or vaccine mandates. At one point Fauci's lawyer, Schertler, tried to make a statement, and Paul ordered security to escort him out. Moreno referred to the lawyer with an insult, according to STAT.
Democrats took a different approach. They did not question Fauci about the substance of the pandemic; instead they thanked him for his career, including his HIV/AIDS work. Ranking member Gary Peters of Michigan said the hearing was not bipartisan and was designed to support a conclusion reached years ago. Sen. Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire told Fauci, "It must be enormously frustrating to know that this hearing is designed to entrap you." Sen. Andy Kim of New Jersey warned that hearings like this could deter scientists from public service.
Paul warned that refusing to testify has consequences and that obstructing a congressional investigation is illegal. He said the Fifth Amendment might not protect someone who has been pardoned, while acknowledging that the theory had "probably never been tested legally" and that courts may have to decide. He declined to say whether he thought the diary entries contained anything incriminating. He announced that the committee would vote the following week on contempt.
Stanley Brand, a Penn State law professor and former House general counsel, told NPR the hearing may have been aimed at provoking a perjury charge, which the pardon would not cover, and said Fauci had little choice but to plead the Fifth.
What "Pleading the Fifth" Means
The text and its purpose
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, says in part that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." That short phrase is the source of the right against self-incrimination, often called "pleading the Fifth."
Although the text mentions "any criminal case," courts have long held that the privilege applies in many settings outside a criminal trial, including grand juries, civil cases and congressional hearings. A witness can refuse to answer a question if a truthful answer could help build a criminal case against them. Jeremy Paul, a constitutional law expert at Northeastern University, noted that witnesses keep this protection even when Congress subpoenas them.
It is not an admission of guilt
The privilege exists in large part to protect the presumption of innocence. Innocent people can have good reasons to stay silent. They may fear that their words will be twisted, that an honest mistake in memory will be treated as a lie, or that a single answer might be used as a link in a chain of evidence against them. As one criminal defense firm quoted by TIME put it, "Pleading the Fifth is not an admission of guilt."
In a criminal trial, prosecutors cannot tell a jury that a defendant's silence shows guilt. Politics is different. Members of Congress and the public are free to draw their own conclusions, and critics of Fauci have said his silence is telling. His defenders say it reflects his lawyers' advice in the face of what they describe as a hostile process aimed at catching him in a statement that could be charged as perjury.
When does the privilege apply?
The general rule is that the danger of prosecution must be real, not imaginary or remote. If there is no realistic chance that a witness's answers could be used to prosecute them, the privilege may not apply. That is why the pardon matters so much in Fauci's case.
How a Pardon Interacts With the Fifth Amendment
What Biden's pardon covers
On January 20, 2025, hours before he left office, President Biden issued preemptive pardons to Fauci, retired Gen. Mark Milley, and members and staff of the House January 6 committee, among others. Biden said those people "do not deserve to be the targets of unjustified and politically motivated prosecutions." He added: "The issuance of these pardons should not be mistaken as an acknowledgment that any individual engaged in any wrongdoing."
Fauci's pardon covers possible federal offenses tied to his government roles from January 1, 2014, through the date it was issued in January 2025. Reporting has described the end date slightly differently (some outlets say January 19, 2025), but the key points are the same:
- It covers only federal offenses. A president's pardon power applies to crimes against the United States. It does not reach state crimes.
- It covers only past conduct. A pardon cannot cover something a person has not done yet. Anything Fauci said under oath in 2026 falls outside it.
Fauci has said in the past that there were no grounds for a criminal investigation but that he valued the pardon because of threats against him and his family, according to NPR.
Paul's argument: the pardon removes the privilege
Paul's position is straightforward. If Fauci cannot be prosecuted federally for anything he did from 2014 through January 2025, then truthful answers about that period cannot incriminate him under federal law, so he has no right to refuse to answer.
There is old Supreme Court support for part of this idea. In Brown v. Walker (1896), the Court said that if a witness "has already received a pardon, he cannot longer set up his privilege," because with respect to that offense, he stands as if it had never been committed. In other words, a person who has truly been freed from any risk of prosecution generally cannot use the Fifth Amendment to avoid testifying about that matter.
There is also a famous wrinkle. In Burdick v. United States (1915), a newspaper editor named George Burdick refused to testify before a grand jury. President Woodrow Wilson offered him a pardon, and Burdick refused to accept it. The Supreme Court held that a pardon has to be accepted to take effect, so Burdick could still claim the privilege. That case is not a perfect fit here, because there is no report that Fauci rejected his pardon.
Fauci's argument: the danger is still real
Fauci's lawyers and many outside experts say the privilege still applies, for several reasons.
First, perjury risk. Because the pardon covers only past conduct, a false statement during the 2026 hearing would be a new potential crime. HHS Secretary Kennedy said on Fox News that Fauci "could perjure himself now." Several Republicans said the same. Fauci's defenders argue that this creates exactly the risk the Fifth Amendment is meant to address: a witness who believes a hostile committee wants to catch him in a statement it can call a lie.
Second, state prosecution. The pardon does nothing to stop a state from bringing charges under its own laws. Within a week of the hearing, three state attorneys general announced an investigation. Northeastern's Jeremy Paul said that the multi-state investigation strengthens Fauci's basis for pleading the Fifth, noting that federal and state laws often overlap. The National Constitution Center, in a January 2025 explainer, summarized the view of scholars that the privilege may survive a federal pardon if testimony could expose a witness to state charges.
Third, challenges to the pardon itself. Some Republicans argue that the pardon is invalid because it was signed by autopen (a machine that reproduces a signature). If that argument were ever accepted, the federal protection could disappear. The mere existence of an effort to void the pardon, defenders say, keeps the risk of federal prosecution alive.
Fourth, uncertainty about scope. Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. attorney and University of Michigan law professor, told TIME that because the pardon covers only crimes Fauci "may" have committed before January 2025, his fear of prosecution is reasonable and his invocation proper. She said he would likely have a strong motion to dismiss if charged with contempt.
Experts also stress that the question is not fully settled. Jonathan David Shaub, a University of Kentucky law professor, told TIME that the effect of a pardon on Fifth Amendment claims "doesn't seem to have really been settled." Dan Urman of Northeastern said, "The law is not settled on the impact of a pardon on someone's ability to then go ahead and plead the Fifth," while predicting that federal courts would more than likely side with Fauci on his silence. Frank Bowman, a University of Missouri law professor emeritus quoted by Slate, said "a judge would likely find Fauci had a constitutional right to plead the Fifth."
Fauci's lawyer, Schertler, said in an email to CBS News: "We are completely confident that Dr. Fauci has a valid Fifth Amendment privilege here." He added, "Rand Paul may be a doctor, but he is not a lawyer."
The committee's contempt resolution also made a narrower argument: that Fauci waived his privilege by discussing relevant subject matter in his opening statement. That theory, too, would be for a court to decide.
How Contempt of Congress Works
Three kinds of contempt
Congress has three main tools when a witness refuses to cooperate:
- Criminal contempt. Congress refers the witness to federal prosecutors, who decide whether to bring charges. This is the path Paul chose.
- Civil enforcement. Congress asks a federal court to order the witness to comply. A witness who then refuses can be held in contempt of court.
- Inherent contempt. Congress itself detains or fines a witness. This power exists in theory but has not been used in modern times.
The criminal contempt process
Under federal law, refusing to answer pertinent questions or to produce documents demanded by a congressional subpoena is a misdemeanor. According to TIME, a conviction can bring a fine of up to $100,000 and up to one year in prison. Prosecutors must prove that the refusal was willful. Donald K. Sherman, a former senior counsel to the committee's Democratic ranking member, called that "a not insignificant burden."
The usual route goes like this: a committee votes to recommend contempt; the full chamber (here, the Senate) votes on the resolution; and then the presiding officer certifies the matter to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, whose office decides whether to bring the case to a grand jury. Congress cannot prosecute or convict anyone itself.
Criminal contempt prosecutions are rare. In recent years, two high-profile defendants, Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro, served prison time after being convicted of contempt of Congress for defying subpoenas from the House January 6 committee. Neither of those men invoked the Fifth Amendment as the basis for refusing to testify in the way Fauci did, which is one reason legal experts see Fauci's case as different.
Criminal contempt also does not force a witness to talk. As Sen. Peters put it during the committee's debate: "Criminal contempt is punitive. It does not compel a witness to answer questions or produce the documents we'd all like to see."
Immunity as an alternative
If Congress wants testimony from someone who has invoked the Fifth, it has another option. Under 18 U.S.C. § 6005, Congress can ask a federal court for an order granting the witness immunity. The witness must then testify, but their testimony cannot be used against them in a criminal case. For a Senate committee, the request requires a two-thirds vote of its members. As discussed below, the committee tried this route with a different witness in September 2026 and failed.
The Contempt Vote: August 6, 2026
One week after the hearing, on Thursday, August 6, 2026, the committee voted along party lines to hold Fauci in contempt of Congress. Reports describe the tally differently: CBS News and ABC reported 8 to 5, with two more Democrats opposed by proxy, while TIME and other outlets reported 8 to 7. These appear to describe the same vote, counted with and without proxies. Democrats tried repeatedly to table or delay the vote and were blocked by the Republican majority.
Paul defended the vote. "Holding a witness in contempt is a serious thing, and it should be rare," he said, according to CBS. He also framed the issue simply: "The chair directed Anthony Fauci to answer. He refused. That is what we are voting on today."
Schertler called the vote "a crude political stunt intended to punish Dr. Fauci for exercising his constitutional rights."
Skipping the Senate floor
The most unusual part of the vote was procedural. Normally a committee contempt resolution goes to the full Senate. There, Republicans, who held 53 seats, would likely have needed 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, and Democrats were not expected to provide the extra votes.
Paul chose instead to send the committee's recommendation directly to the Justice Department. The resolution directed Vice President JD Vance, as president of the Senate, to certify the report to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeanine Pirro. A congressional aide told CBS the referral was sent the same day. Paul said the full Senate could still vote later but that there "might not be" a point.
Legal experts were divided on whether this route has any legal force:
- Donald K. Sherman called the plan "silly theater" with no legal effect, according to TIME.
- Barbara McQuade called the vote "largely symbolic," because the full Senate would have to approve contempt.
- Frank Bowman, quoted by Slate, said bypassing the full Senate was "technically a violation of internal Senate rules and federal statute."
- Jonathan David Shaub said Senate precedent protects the certification process, but warned that Justice Department action on a single chair's referral could set a striking precedent.
The Justice Department's Response
A Justice Department spokesperson confirmed that the department received the referral and said it would "work with the Senate accordingly." Charging decisions rest with the department and, in the first instance, with Pirro's office.
Before this, Paul had sent several criminal referrals about Fauci to the Justice Department over the years (see below). STAT noted that government lawyers had not acted on his earlier referrals.
In late August, the Wall Street Journal reported that the contempt effort had stalled. According to summaries of that report, officials in the Trump administration questioned whether the approach was procedurally sound and worried that a case might not survive a motion to dismiss without a full Senate vote. The report said President Trump had not decided whether he wanted the department to act and treated the matter as a low priority. It also said Trump had signaled that he respects Biden's pardon of Fauci; he has said Fauci "made a lot of mistakes" but has not called for his prosecution, according to those summaries. Some accounts of the report also said Paul's office had not yet delivered all of the paperwork, which conflicts with earlier statements that the referral had been sent; that discrepancy was not resolved in public reporting.
As of October 31, 2026, this article could find no public report that the Justice Department had opened a grand jury case, filed charges, or formally declined the referral.
The States Step In
The Florida-led subpoena
On August 5, 2026, the day before the contempt vote, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced that his office had issued an investigative subpoena to Fauci. He was joined by West Virginia Attorney General John McCuskey and Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill.
According to NBC News, the subpoena sought documents from January 3, 2020, to the present, due by August 31, 2026. It asked for records about grants, awards and book deals Fauci was considered for or received; interactions with Florida businesses, media and communities about COVID recommendations; and documents on vaccine effectiveness and boosters, natural immunity, adverse events including myocarditis, messaging strategy, and communications with vaccine manufacturers. Coverage in Louisiana's American Press noted the investigation's interest in awards such as a roughly $900,000 Dan David Foundation prize Fauci received in 2021.
What the states allege
Uthmeier alleged that Fauci "profited" from his COVID recommendations, which he described as possible "self-dealing." He said that if Fauci personally profited from his guidance, "that very well could have broken Florida law," while noting that officials have some immunity for actions in their official capacities. He cited the diary entries released by Paul and argued that Floridians were "deceived and harmed by his misrepresentations."
McCuskey called Fauci's refusal to answer questions "concerning" and said, "The American people deserve to know if they or their elected leaders were misled or manipulated." Murrill said, "What we know already is Fauci lied—we just don't know yet how much," and that the public "deserves answers to about a million questions."
These are accusations made by elected prosecutors at the start of an investigation. A subpoena is not a charge.
Fauci's response to the states
Fauci's lawyer did not immediately respond to NBC's request for comment. In a later statement to Reuters, Schertler said: "Dr. Fauci is facing an unprecedented legal barrage for a retired civil servant." He also said: "Dr. Fauci has not done anything wrong, and we are prepared to fight back against this shameful harassment of an honorable man who dedicated his career to saving lives."
A legal defense fund
On August 21, 2026, Reuters reported that Fauci's lawyers had set up a legal defense fund to pay for responding to the growing number of investigations. According to the report, Fauci will receive no payment from the fund, which is set up as a trust with an independent corporate trustee. Neither Fauci nor his lawyers control how money is spent, an independent adviser reviews legal invoices, and any money left over after his legal matters end will go to charity. Reuters said Fauci would need lawyers in at least Florida, West Virginia and Louisiana, partly to handle document review under the Florida subpoena.
Status as of late October
The August 31 deadline for documents has passed. This article could not find a public report on whether Fauci produced documents, obtained an extension, or challenged the subpoena in court. No state has filed criminal charges against him based on public reporting reviewed for this article.
The Autopen Challenge to the Pardon
A separate line of attack targets the pardon itself. In July 2025, the New York Times reported that many of Biden's end-of-term pardons, including the preemptive ones, were signed with an autopen after a January 19, 2025, meeting, with his chief of staff approving use of the device by email. On July 14, 2025, Paul announced that he would reissue his criminal referral of Fauci to the Trump Justice Department, writing on X, "Perjury is a crime. And Fauci must be held accountable."
In October 2025, the Republican majority on the House Oversight Committee released a report arguing that executive actions signed by autopen without proper authorization were "null and void." Ed Martin, then the Justice Department's pardon attorney, wrote to Oversight Chairman James Comer: "My office cannot support the validity of AutoPen pardons for individuals such as Anthony Fauci," adding that this required "further examination and fact-finding."
Many legal scholars are skeptical. Northeastern's Jeremy Paul called a court invalidation that restores penalties "extremely unlikely" absent evidence that officials acted against Biden's wishes. No court has ruled that Fauci's pardon is invalid, and no public report reviewed for this article shows that the Justice Department has asked a court to make such a ruling.
The Accusations Behind the Hearing
The 2026 hearing did not come out of nowhere. It was the latest chapter in a fight that began in 2020. Here are the main accusations and how each side responds.
1. Gain-of-function research and the EcoHealth grant
The accusation. Critics say NIH, through NIAID, funded risky "gain-of-function" research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) via a grant to the New York-based nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance, which passed money to the Wuhan lab as a subaward. Gain-of-function, in its broadest sense, means experiments that give an organism a new ability, such as infecting a new kind of cell. In public debate it usually refers to work that might make a virus more transmissible or dangerous to humans. Reporting in 2021 said EcoHealth passed at least $600,000 of NIH money to Wuhan coronavirus research.
Paul has long argued that Fauci misled Congress when he denied that NIH funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan. The Republican majority of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic concluded in its December 2024 final report that EcoHealth "used U.S. taxpayer dollars to facilitate dangerous gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China."
The definitional fight. Much of this dispute turns on definitions. NIH had a specific regulatory category for enhanced potential pandemic pathogens, and Fauci has said the Wuhan work did not meet that definition. In May 2024, NIH Principal Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak told House investigators: "It depends on your definition of gain-of-function research. If you're speaking about the generic term, yes, we did." He added that the generic term describes research "that goes on in many, many labs around the country" and that "it is not regulated." Republicans called that an admission. Democrats and NIH defenders said it showed the gap between a broad scientific phrase and the narrower regulated category Fauci had been talking about.
What happened to EcoHealth. Tabak also testified that EcoHealth submitted a required progress report nearly two years late and that, with what is known now, NIH would not issue the WIV-linked grant today. HHS suspended EcoHealth's funding in 2024, and on January 17, 2025, it formally debarred EcoHealth and its former president, Peter Daszak, from federal funding for five years. HHS wrote that debarment of Daszak was "necessary to protect the Federal Government's business interests." EcoHealth had ended Daszak's employment earlier that month.
The other side. The Democratic minority of the House subcommittee concluded that EcoHealth did not cause the pandemic, because the viruses it studied, including through the Wuhan subaward, were too genetically distant from SARS-CoV-2. The minority report also said that EcoHealth and Daszak may have misled the federal government. It found that Fauci's earlier Senate testimony on gain-of-function was accurate because he was referring to the regulatory definition, and that he was reportedly unaware of the EcoHealth grant until after the outbreak. Fauci testified in June 2024 that NIH-funded viral research was not responsible for creating COVID-19.
2. Lab leak versus natural origin
The core question. Did SARS-CoV-2 spill over naturally from animals to humans, possibly at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan, or did it come from a research-related accident at a lab in Wuhan? Five-plus years after the outbreak, there is still no definitive answer.
What U.S. agencies have concluded. The U.S. intelligence community remains divided, and most of its judgments are made with low confidence:
- FBI: Has assessed that a lab-related origin is "most likely," according to FactCheck.org's summary of the intelligence community's positions.
- Department of Energy: In 2023, assessed that a lab leak was the most likely origin, but with "low confidence."
- CIA: In January 2025, said: "CIA assesses with low confidence that a research-related origin of the COVID-19 pandemic is more likely than a natural origin based on the available body of reporting." It added that "both research-related and natural origin scenarios of the COVID-19 pandemic remain plausible." The assessment was based on existing information, not new intelligence, and was completed under the previous director, William Burns, before being released under the new director, John Ratcliffe.
- Other agencies: Five other agencies favor natural spillover or are undecided, according to FactCheck.org.
FactCheck.org notes that the FBI, Energy Department and CIA disagree among themselves about which lab might have been involved. Almost all intelligence agencies say the virus was not genetically engineered, and all agree it was not developed as a biological weapon, according to a 2023 report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Congress. The House Select Subcommittee's Republican majority concluded in December 2024 that the virus "most likely emerged from a laboratory in Wuhan, China," and that "a lab-related incident involving gain-of-function research is most likely the origin of COVID-19." The Democratic minority said the Republican inquiry "failed" to identify the origin.
Scientists. Many virologists favor a natural spillover. FactCheck.org says the scientific evidence supports natural spillover rather than a lab leak, while acknowledging the question is not proven. ABC News, covering the House report, noted that researchers have built up circumstantial evidence pointing to a natural origin, most likely at the Huanan market. Supporters of the lab-leak view point to the virus's characteristics and reports of illnesses among Wuhan Institute of Virology researchers in fall 2019, both of which the House majority cited.
Fauci's position. Fauci has said he still considers a natural origin more likely but has kept an open mind. In 2024 he told the House that he "always kept an open mind to the different possibilities." His 2021 diary entry calling for "a thorough investigation" is consistent with that public stance, according to his defenders.
3. The "Proximal Origin" paper
What it is. "The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2" is a short scientific commentary published in Nature Medicine in early 2020. Its authors, including Kristian Andersen of Scripps Research, argued that the virus was not a laboratory construct or purposefully manipulated. It was widely cited early in the pandemic as evidence against a lab origin.
The accusation. On February 1, 2020, Fauci, NIH Director Francis Collins and at least eleven other scientists held a teleconference about the new virus. Four participants in that call later wrote the paper, and a draft was sent to Fauci and Collins three days after the call, according to the House subcommittee majority. Critics, including the House subcommittee majority, say Fauci "prompted" the paper "to push the preferred narrative that COVID-19 originated in nature," and that it was used to discredit the lab-leak hypothesis.
The response. Scripps Research, Andersen's employer, told House Republicans in an August 18, 2021, letter that Andersen investigated the origins question "objectively" and that Fauci did not try to influence his work; the committee majority said the evidence did not support those claims. Andersen has said his own view of the virus's origins changed as he examined data on related bat and pangolin viruses. The House Democratic minority concluded that Fauci "did not orchestrate the Proximal Origin paper" and did not pay its authors with federal money.
4. Paul's perjury referrals
2021. On May 11, 2021, Fauci told a Senate hearing that NIH had not funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. On July 20, 2021, the two clashed again. Paul opened by saying "knowing that it is a crime to lie to Congress," and asked whether Fauci wanted to retract his May statement. Fauci replied that Paul did "not know what you are talking about," and said the research in question "was judged by qualified staff up and down the chain." The next day, Paul sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland asking for a criminal investigation under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the federal false-statements law, arguing that the Wuhan research met the definition of gain-of-function and that Fauci's testimony conflicted with emails that had come to light.
Later referrals. After the autopen reporting, Paul said in July 2025 that he would reissue his criminal referral to the Trump administration's Justice Department. After the 2026 hearing came the contempt referral. None of these, as of the end of October 2026, has led to charges, according to available public reporting.
The response. Fauci has maintained that his testimony was accurate because it referred to NIH's regulatory definition of gain-of-function research. The House Democratic minority report agreed. Critics say the regulatory definition was too narrow and that he should have been more forthcoming. Any federal false-statements charge for testimony given in 2021 would fall within the pardon's coverage period, which is one reason the focus has shifted to the autopen challenge and to post-pardon testimony.
5. FOIA evasion, deleted emails and David Morens
Who he is. David Morens was a senior adviser in NIAID's Office of the Director from 2006 to 2022, working near Fauci.
The House investigation. In 2024, House investigators released emails in which Morens discussed avoiding Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. The subcommittee's final report said Morens "deliberately obstructed the Select Subcommittee's investigation, likely lied to Congress on multiple occasions," unlawfully deleted federal COVID-19 records, and shared nonpublic NIH grant information with EcoHealth's president.
The criminal case. In April 2026, a federal grand jury in Maryland indicted Morens. According to STAT and other outlets, prosecutors alleged he conspired with others, including a person matching the description of Peter Daszak and an unnamed third person, to keep communications out of reach of FOIA by using personal email, during a period running from mid-2020 to mid-2023. The indictment quoted Morens saying he had been told he could "cover" himself by "deleting emails and making use of foia delays." Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche accused Morens of having "deliberately concealed information and falsified records in an effort to suppress alternative theories." STAT reported that congressional investigations had not found that Morens's emails showed him hiding evidence of a lab leak.
The plea. In August 2026, Morens pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit offenses against and to defraud the United States, under a deal that resolved the five counts in the original indictment. The charge carries a maximum of five years in prison. His lawyer, Timothy Belevetz, said: "By pleading guilty today, Dr. Morens has taken responsibility for what he did and will continue to do so." Neither Daszak nor the third person has been charged.
Fauci's status. Fauci is not charged in the Morens case and is not named in the indictment. He has forcefully denied knowing about Morens's efforts to evade federal records requirements. At the June 2024 House hearing he said, "I do not do government business on my private email," and "to the best of my knowledge I have never conducted official business using my personal email."
6. The former assistant and the failed immunity vote
The Fifth Amendment came up again in September 2026, this time with a different witness. A longtime former executive assistant to Fauci at NIAID invoked her Fifth Amendment right during a closed-door committee deposition the week of September 15. Paul has accused her of a history of destroying records; she has not been charged with any crime.
On September 23, the committee voted on a resolution directing the Senate's legal counsel to seek a court order granting her immunity under 18 U.S.C. § 6005. Because that requires a two-thirds vote, the measure failed on an 8 to 7 party-line vote, with Democrats opposed. Paul said, "The only thing immunity changes is whether the American people hear what she knows." Sen. Hassan said, "I do think it is rushed today." Paul said he would refer the assistant to the Justice Department and scheduled a second vote for October 1. This article could not find a public report of that second vote's outcome.
7. The phone records
Around the time of the contempt vote, committee Republicans said they had obtained a copy of the government cell phone Fauci used while running NIAID. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin said he hoped it would "address many of the questions he refused to answer at last week's hearing." Reuters later reported that Paul and Johnson had begun releasing texts from the phone. Earlier, in 2024, Bloomberg had published a set of Fauci's government phone records obtained through a FOIA lawsuit; the reporter behind it, Jason Leopold, wrote that the messages mostly concerned influential people contacting Fauci early in the pandemic.
Public Opinion
The fight has also played out in public opinion. A survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, fielded August 4 to 17, 2026, among 1,904 U.S. adults, found that 50% were somewhat or very confident that Fauci had provided trustworthy public health information, down from 55% in April 2026. By comparison, 38% expressed the same confidence in Health Secretary Kennedy, statistically unchanged from 37% in April. The survey's margin of error was plus or minus 3.2 percentage points.
Timeline
- February 1, 2020: Fauci, Collins and outside scientists hold a teleconference on the new virus; four participants later write "The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2," published in Nature Medicine in early 2020.
- May 11, 2021: At a Senate hearing, Fauci says NIH did not fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
- July 20, 2021: Fauci and Paul clash at a Senate hearing; Fauci tells Paul he does not know what he is talking about.
- July 2021: Paul sends a criminal referral letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland citing 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
- December 31, 2022: Fauci steps down as NIAID director.
- 2023: The Energy Department (low confidence) and the FBI are reported to lean toward a lab origin; an ODNI report says the intelligence community remains divided.
- May 2024: HHS suspends EcoHealth's funding; NIH's Lawrence Tabak testifies about the "generic" meaning of gain-of-function.
- June 3, 2024: Fauci testifies before the House Select Subcommittee and denies covering up a lab origin.
- December 2, 2024: The House Select Subcommittee releases its 520-page final report; Democrats release a minority report the next day.
- January 17, 2025: HHS debars EcoHealth Alliance and Peter Daszak for five years.
- January 20, 2025: Biden issues preemptive pardons to Fauci and others.
- January 25, 2025: The CIA releases its low-confidence assessment favoring a research-related origin.
- July 14, 2025: After reports on autopen use, Paul says he will reissue his criminal referral.
- October 2025: House Oversight Republicans call unauthorized autopen actions "null and void"; DOJ pardon attorney Ed Martin says he cannot support the validity of autopen pardons for people including Fauci without further fact-finding.
- April 2026: A federal grand jury in Maryland indicts David Morens.
- Late July 2026: Paul releases more than 1,000 pages of Fauci's diary notes.
- July 29, 2026: Fauci invokes the Fifth Amendment more than 100 times at the Senate hearing.
- August 5, 2026: Florida, joined by West Virginia and Louisiana, subpoenas Fauci's documents.
- August 6, 2026: The committee votes along party lines to hold Fauci in contempt; Paul sends the referral directly to the Justice Department.
- August 2026: Morens pleads guilty to one conspiracy count.
- August 21, 2026: Reuters reports Fauci's lawyers have set up an independent legal defense fund.
- Late August 2026: The Wall Street Journal reports the contempt effort has stalled.
- August 31, 2026: Deadline for documents under the Florida subpoena.
- September 23, 2026: The committee fails to approve immunity for a former Fauci assistant; a second vote is scheduled for October 1.
- October 31, 2026: No public reports of federal or state charges against Fauci.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did Fauci admit to a crime by pleading the Fifth?
No. Invoking the Fifth Amendment is the exercise of a constitutional right, not an admission. A witness may decline to answer for many reasons, including fear that an honest answer will be misused or that a minor inconsistency will be treated as perjury. Critics are free to draw their own conclusions, but legally, silence is not proof of guilt.
Was this the first time Fauci took the Fifth?
Yes, according to reporting on the hearing. Fauci said he had testified or briefed Congress more than 200 times during his nearly four decades at NIAID, and outlets described the July 29, 2026, hearing as the first time he invoked the privilege.
How many times did he invoke it?
News outlets reported more than 100 times. Paul said the number was 111.
Doesn't the pardon mean he can't be prosecuted, so he has nothing to fear?
That is Paul's argument. The counterargument is that the pardon covers only federal offenses committed before January 2025. It does not protect against state charges, and it does not protect against new federal crimes, such as perjury during the 2026 hearing. Some Republicans are also trying to have the pardon declared invalid because it was signed by autopen. Most legal experts quoted in coverage believe a court would likely uphold his right to stay silent, though they agree the precise question has not been settled.
Was Fauci held in contempt of Congress?
The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted on August 6, 2026, to recommend contempt. The full Senate has not voted on it. Paul sent the committee's recommendation directly to the Justice Department, a move many experts believe may lack legal force without a full Senate vote.
Has the Justice Department charged him?
Not as of October 31, 2026, according to public reporting reviewed for this article. The department confirmed receiving the referral. The Wall Street Journal reported in late August that the effort had stalled over procedural concerns.
What could happen if he were charged and convicted of contempt?
According to TIME, contempt of Congress is a federal misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in prison and a fine of up to $100,000. Prosecutors would have to prove the refusal was willful, and Fauci would be expected to argue that he validly invoked the Fifth Amendment.
What are the states investigating?
Florida, joined by West Virginia and Louisiana, is investigating whether Fauci personally profited from his COVID-era guidance, which Florida's attorney general described as possible "self-dealing." Louisiana's attorney general has said she believes Fauci "lied." These are investigations, not charges.
Was Fauci charged in the David Morens case?
No. Morens, a former senior adviser, pleaded guilty in August 2026 to a conspiracy count tied to concealing records from public-records requests. Fauci is not charged or named in that case and has denied knowing about Morens's conduct.
Did NIH fund gain-of-function research in Wuhan?
It depends on the definition, which is the heart of the dispute. NIH's Lawrence Tabak testified in 2024 that under the "generic" meaning of the term, yes, but that the work did not fall under the regulated category. Fauci has said his testimony referred to the regulated category. Critics say that definition was too narrow.
Did COVID-19 come from a lab?
No one knows for certain. The FBI, Energy Department and CIA lean toward a lab-related origin, mostly with low confidence. Other intelligence agencies lean toward a natural origin or are undecided, also with low confidence. Many scientists believe natural spillover is better supported by the evidence. The question remains open.
Is the autopen pardon challenge likely to succeed?
Many legal scholars say it is unlikely. No court has ruled the pardon invalid, and no public report reviewed for this article shows a court case seeking to void it.
What to Watch Next
Several threads remain open as of the end of October 2026:
- The Justice Department's decision. Whether the department acts on the contempt referral, declines it, or lets it sit will determine whether the legal questions about the pardon and the Fifth Amendment ever reach a courtroom.
- A possible full Senate vote. Paul has said the full Senate could still vote, though Republicans would likely lack the 60 votes needed.
- The state investigations. Watch for any court fight over the Florida subpoena or any state charging decision. A state prosecution would be the cleanest test of the pardon's limits, because a federal pardon does not apply.
- The Morens sentencing. Morens is awaiting sentencing in federal court in Maryland. Any details made public about the investigation could feed into the broader dispute.
- The former assistant. Whether Paul refers her to prosecutors, and whether the committee ever wins immunity for her, could affect what further testimony reaches the public.
- More document releases. Paul and Johnson have said they are reviewing additional material, including phone records.
Whatever happens next, the episode has already raised legal questions that courts have rarely, if ever, had to answer directly: what a preemptive pardon really protects, whether a pardoned witness can still stay silent, and whether one committee can send a contempt case to prosecutors without the full Senate. It has also kept alive the larger public argument over how the pandemic was handled and where the virus came from, an argument that, so far, no hearing has settled.
Sources and further reading
- STAT News, "Fauci pleads Fifth, criticizes Rand Paul at Senate hearing" (July 29, 2026): https://www.statnews.com/2026/07/29/fauci-pleads-fifth-criticizes-rand-paul-senate-hearing/
- TIME, "What It Means to Plead the Fifth Amendment" (July 30, 2026): https://time.com/article/2026/07/30/fifth-amendment-fauci-rand-paul-covid-hearing-contempt-of-congress/
- NPR, "Anthony Fauci invokes Fifth Amendment at tense Senate hearing" (July 29, 2026), text edition: https://text.npr.org/nx-s1-5911849
- NPR, "Senate Homeland Security committee votes to hold Fauci in contempt of Congress" (August 6, 2026), text edition: https://text.npr.org/nx-s1-5921383
- CBS News, "Senate committee votes to hold Fauci in contempt of Congress, seeking to bypass floor vote with DOJ referral" (August 6, 2026): https://www.cbsnews.com/news/anthony-fauci-senate-committee-contempt-of-congress-rand-paul/
- TIME, "A Senate Panel Has Voted to Hold Fauci in Contempt of Congress. What Happens Next?" (August 6, 2026): https://time.com/article/2026/08/06/fauci-contempt-of-congress-vote-senate-what-next/
- Northeastern Global News, "Fauci contempt action: His pending legal predicament, explained" (August 6, 2026): https://news.northeastern.edu/2026/08/06/fauci-contempt-action-explained/
- Slate, "The Real Reason Rand Paul Put a DOJ Target on Anthony Fauci's Back" (August 7, 2026): https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2026/08/rand-paul-doj-republicans-anthony-fauci-contempt.html
- Fox News, "House committee says Fauci 'prompted' drafting of medical paper to 'disprove' COVID lab leak theory" (March 5, 2023): https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-committee-fauci-prompted-drafting-medical-paper-disprove-covid-lab-leak-theory
- Ground News summary of Wall Street Journal report, "Fauci Contempt Prosecution Stalls Over Legal Questions" (August 27, 2026): https://ground.news/article/cf7013f4-1690-4c33-8081-a01d8343ecb9
- NBC News, "Three state attorneys general subpoena Anthony Fauci over Covid guidance" (August 5, 2026): https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/three-state-attorneys-general-subpoena-anthony-fauci-covid-guidance-rcna591082
- American Press, "UPDATE: Florida joins Louisiana effort targeting Fauci records" (August 6, 2026): https://americanpress.com/2026/08/06/update-florida-joins-louisiana-effort-targeting-fauci-records/
- Reuters via SRN News, "Exclusive: Fauci's lawyers set up legal defense fund as US probes multiply" (August 21, 2026): https://srnnews.com/exclusive-faucis-lawyers-set-up-legal-defense-fund-as-us-probes-multiply/
- Newsweek, "Anthony Fauci found in contempt of Congress: What phone records reveal": https://www.newsweek.com/fauci-faces-contempt-vote-what-his-phone-records-reveal-12291783
- CBS News, "Fauci diaries, released by Sen. Rand Paul, touch on COVID origins and tense relationship with Trump" (July 2026): https://www.cbsnews.com/news/anthony-fauci-rand-paul-diary-release/
- FactCheck.org, "Paul Distorts Fauci's Diary Entry About COVID-19 and Wet Market" (July 2026): https://www.factcheck.org/2026/07/paul-distorts-faucis-diary-entry-about-covid-19-and-wet-market/
- STAT News, "Fauci adviser David Morens indicted on charges of concealing emails, avoiding FOIA" (April 28, 2026): https://www.statnews.com/2026/04/28/fauci-adviser-david-morens-indicted-concealing-emails-avoiding-foia/
- Legal Insurrection, "Former Fauci adviser pleads guilty in conspiracy to conceal COVID-19 records" (August 2026): https://legalinsurrection.com/2026/08/former-fauci-adviser-pleads-guilty-in-conspiracy-to-conceal-covid-19-records/
- Legis1, report on the September 23, 2026, committee immunity vote: https://legis1.com/news/senate-witness-immunity-vote-panel-votes-against
- Annenberg survey via Phys.org, "Survey shows public confidence in Fauci declines since spring but still exceeds RFK Jr." (September 2026): https://phys.org/news/2026-09-survey-confidence-fauci-declines-exceeds.html
- National Constitution Center, "Do presidential pardons remove the Fifth Amendment rights of recipients?" (January 23, 2025): https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/do-presidential-pardons-remove-the-fifth-amendment-rights-of-recipients
- ABC7 News, "Biden preemptively pardons Anthony Fauci, Mark Milley and Jan. 6 committee members" (January 20, 2025): https://abc7news.com/post/joe-biden-preemptively-pardons-anthony-fauci-mark-milley-jan-6-committee-members/15818813/
- KRDO / CNN, "CIA assesses lab leak most plausible source of Covid-19, though with low confidence" (January 25, 2025): https://krdo.com/news/2025/01/25/cia-assesses-lab-leak-most-plausible-source-of-covid-19-though-with-low-confidence/
- The Daily Wire, "Why Rand Paul Says Biden's Autopen Puts Fauci Back In His Crosshairs" (July 14, 2025): https://www.dailywire.com/news/why-rand-paul-says-bidens-autopen-puts-fauci-back-in-his-crosshairs
- The Blaze, "DOJ pardon attorney doubts validity of Biden autopen pardons as nullification campaign picks up steam" (October 29, 2025): https://www.theblaze.com/news/nullification-campaign-picks-up-steam-as-doj-pardon-attorney-rejects-validity-of-biden-era-pardons
- House Oversight Committee, "HHS Formally Debars EcoHealth Alliance, Dr. Peter Daszak" (January 17, 2025): https://oversight.house.gov/release/breaking-hhs-formally-debars-ecohealth-alliance-dr-peter-daszak-after-covid-select-reveals-pandemic-era-wrongdoing
- House Oversight Committee, hearing wrap-up on NIH Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak's testimony (May 17, 2024): https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing-wrap-up-nih-repeatedly-refutes-ecohealth-alliance-president-dr-peter-daszaks-testimony-tabak-testimony-reveals-federal-grant-procedures-in-need-of-serious-reform
- House Oversight Committee, "Final Report: COVID Select Concludes 2-Year Investigation" (December 2, 2024): https://oversight.house.gov/release/final-report-covid-select-concludes-2-year-investigation-issues-500-page-final-report-on-lessons-learned-and-the-path-forward/
- House Oversight Democrats, "Ranking Member Ruiz Leads Select Subcommittee Democrats in Releasing Final Report" (December 3, 2024): https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/news/press-releases/ranking-member-ruiz-leads-select-subcommittee-democrats-releasing-final-report
- ABC7, "House COVID-19 panel releases final report criticizing public health response to the pandemic" (December 3, 2024): https://abc7.com/post/house-covid-19-panel-releases-final-report-criticizing-public-health-response-pandemic/15618382/
- Roll Call, "Fauci faces skeptical GOP to bat back COVID-19 accusations" (June 3, 2024): https://rollcall.com/2024/06/03/fauci-faces-skeptical-gop-to-bat-back-covid-19-accusations/
- KATV / Sinclair, "Sen. Rand Paul makes good on promise to ask DOJ to investigate Fauci" (July 2021): https://katv.com/news/coronavirus/sen-rand-pauls-dustup-with-fauci-raises-question-what-is-gain-of-function-research