Particle.news
Get it on Google Play
Download on the App Store
304 ARTICLES
·
3w ago

Fauci Invokes Fifth Amendment at Senate Covid Hearing

The move triggers a planned Republican civil-contempt vote, narrows criminal avenues because of a preemptive pardon, leaves scientific questions on COVID origins unsettled.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, former Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, arrives to testify before the House Oversight and Accountability Committee Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic at the Rayburn House Office Building on June 03, 2024 in Washington, DC.
Image
Committee Chairman US Sen Rand Paul (R-KY) is shown on a monitor as former NIH Director Anthony Fauci (L) testifies before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on July 29, 2026 in Washington, DC.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, testifies to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on July 29, 2026, in Washington, DC.

Overview

  • Dr. Anthony Fauci appeared before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and, on the advice of counsel, repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer questions about the pandemic.
  • Sen. Rand Paul released roughly 1,100 pages of Fauci’s pandemic-era diary ahead of the hearing and used entries to press his case that Fauci privately questioned the Wuhan market origin earlier than he said publicly.
  • Republicans on the committee announced plans to seek a vote next week to hold Fauci in civil contempt and signaled they may pursue further legal steps to compel testimony or press referrals to the Justice Department.
  • Fauci’s legal exposure is complicated by a preemptive presidential pardon issued by President Biden that covers his government service through January 19, 2025, narrowing but not eliminating congressional or civil remedies.
  • Democrats and hundreds of scientists condemned the hearing as partisan and warned that aggressive oversight could deter experts from public service, even as U.S. intelligence and scientific reviews continue to disagree on COVID‑19’s origins.