Washington — On Thursday, the Senate Homeland Security Committee voted to hold Dr. Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress due to his refusal to respond to questions during his recent testimony before the panel. The committee contended that Fauci improperly invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Senator Rand Paul, the committee’s chairman, remarked on the gravity of the situation: “Holding a witness in contempt is a serious matter, and it should be rare. However, the contempt power is in place specifically for situations like this.”
The committee, led by Republicans, approved the resolution with an 8 to 5 vote, with all Democrats opposing it and two additional votes against it cast by proxy. Normally, the next step would involve a vote on the Senate floor, but Paul indicated to CBS News that he plans to forward the contempt resolution directly to the Justice Department for further action.
During his testimony last week, Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment in response to each question posed to him, as he appeared under subpoena amid the committee’s inquiry into the origins of COVID-19.
Prior to the hearing, Paul, a Republican from Kentucky who has long accused Fauci of misleading the public regarding the outbreak’s origins, released over 1,000 pages of Fauci’s journal entries from his tenure leading the federal COVID-19 response. Fauci referenced this disclosure during his opening remarks, suggesting that Paul is fixated on pursuing his prosecution.
“The only conclusion I can draw is that his sole purpose in calling me before this committee is to elicit a response that could support his repeated assertions that I should end up, in his words, ‘behind bars,’” Fauci commented regarding Paul’s motivations.
While the Fifth Amendment protects individuals from self-incrimination, Paul argued that Fauci should not be able to invoke it because he is already protected from prosecution due to a pardon issued during the Biden administration. Fauci’s legal representative asserted last week that Fauci had “solid legal grounds” to claim his Fifth Amendment rights, but Paul contends that the legal standing of this issue remains unclear.
Before the vote, Paul emphasized that the committee was not assessing Fauci’s views or policies, but rather addressing the core question of whether a witness, who has received a broad federal pardon, can be compelled to answer questions and face no repercussions for refusal.
“Our only consideration is whether to hold a witness accountable for his contempt towards Congress,” Paul stated. “The witness had numerous opportunities to answer relevant questions for our investigation and chose not to respond 111 times.”
The resolution requires the Senate’s president, Vice President JD Vance, to certify the report documenting Fauci’s refusal to a U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, Jeanine Pirro. The decision to prosecute Fauci would ultimately lie with the Justice Department.
In the previous Congress, which was led by Democrats in 2021 and 2022, contempt charges were recommended against several associates of former President Trump for failing to comply with subpoenas related to the investigation of the January 6 Capitol attack. The Justice Department subsequently charged Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro, both of whom were convicted and served time in prison.
During the committee meeting on Thursday morning, Democratic members attempted multiple times to delay or table the vote, but their efforts were thwarted by the Republican majority on the panel.
Senator Gary Peters of Michigan, the leading Democrat on the committee, voiced his opposition to the resolution prior to the vote, urging members to reject it. He argued that it jeopardizes the committee’s credibility for what he termed Paul’s “long-standing campaign against a single individual.”
“Criminal contempt is punitive in nature. It does not compel a witness to provide answers or produce the documents we seek,” Peters explained. “Instead, it will set a harmful precedent that future witnesses may use to resist legitimate congressional oversight, ultimately undermining the committee’s authority to secure testimony.”
Joe Walsh contributed to this report.
