A Republican-led US Senate committee has voted to recommend holding former top US infectious disease expert Dr Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress after he repeatedly declined to answer questions during a hearing examining the federal government's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee approved the contempt referral on Thursday in an 8-7 party-line vote, marking the latest escalation in a years-long Republican effort to scrutinise Fauci's role during the pandemic and investigate the origins of the coronavirus.
Fauci invoked constitutional right over 100 times
The committee's decision came days after Fauci appeared before lawmakers and invoked the Fifth Amendment, which protects individuals from self-incrimination, more than 100 times instead of responding to questions.
The referral was spearheaded by Senator Rand Paul, the committee's Republican chairman and one of Fauci's most vocal critics since the height of the pandemic.
Paul has repeatedly argued that Fauci should be held accountable for decisions made during the US COVID-19 response and has spent years investigating claims surrounding the virus's origins and the government's handling of the crisis.
Pandemic response back under political spotlight
The vote reflects a broader push by Republicans and the Trump administration to revisit key decisions made during the pandemic.
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has also reshaped federal health policy by questioning several pandemic-era public health measures and portraying recent reforms as an effort to restore public trust after what the administration describes as excessive government mandates during COVID-19.
Fauci, who retired in 2022 after leading the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) for nearly four decades, became one of the most recognisable faces of America's pandemic response. His guidance on vaccines, face masks, social distancing and lockdown measures made him both a trusted public health figure and a frequent target of political criticism.
Democrats oppose contempt move
Democratic members of the committee strongly opposed the referral and introduced multiple procedural motions to delay the vote. Each proposal failed along party lines.
Senator Gary Peters, the committee's ranking Democrat, criticised the investigation as politically motivated and argued that lawmakers were rushing the process without providing adequate access to documents or evidence.
He also sought assurances that the referral would not bypass a full Senate vote before reaching the Justice Department, although that effort was unsuccessful.
Fauci's legal team calls action politically motivated
Fauci's attorney, David Schertler, dismissed the contempt vote as an attempt to punish the former public health official for exercising his constitutional rights.
According to Schertler, Fauci committed no crime and has become the target of what he described as a long-running political campaign driven by Senator Paul.
The lawyer urged the Senate to reject the referral, arguing that the resolution lacked legal merit and was motivated by politics rather than evidence.
Biden pardon adds another legal dimension
Before leaving office in January 2025, former President Joe Biden granted Fauci a pre-emptive federal pardon intended to shield him from prosecutions related to his work during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Rand Paul has argued that the pardon effectively removes Fauci's ability to rely on the Fifth Amendment because, in his view, the risk of federal prosecution no longer exists. Fauci, however, has maintained that the hearing was designed to support predetermined political conclusions rather than conduct an impartial investigation.
What happens next?
Under normal congressional procedure, a contempt referral would require approval by the full US Senate before being sent for possible criminal review.
However, Paul has suggested he could attempt to send the referral directly to the US Department of Justice along with a legal brief, potentially avoiding a Senate-wide vote where bipartisan support would likely be required.
If the matter proceeds, the US Attorney's Office in Washington, DC, led by Jeanine Pirro, would determine whether sufficient grounds exist to pursue a grand jury indictment.
Meanwhile, Fauci is also facing separate state-level investigations into his pandemic-era decisions in West Virginia, Louisiana, Florida and Alabama. Legal experts note that Biden's federal pardon would not shield him from any potential state prosecutions.
(With Reuters inputs)
