WASHINGTON — Dr. Anthony Fauci, the retired immunologist who became the public face of the United States’ response to COVID-19, invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination more than 100 times during a contentious Senate hearing this week, declining to answer questions about the pandemic’s origins and his agency’s handling of the crisis.
The hearing, held before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and chaired by Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, was called to examine whether Fauci misled Congress and the public during his tenure as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Paul issued a subpoena in June after Fauci declined to appear voluntarily, and the session followed the release of Fauci’s personal journals, which Paul’s office made public.
What Fauci said
In a brief opening statement, Fauci accused Paul of pursuing a personal vendetta rather than legitimate oversight, calling the senator’s focus on him an “unhinged obsession.” He said the hearing’s sole purpose was to elicit a statement that could be used to support Paul’s public claims that Fauci should end up “behind bars.”
Fauci then repeated a version of the same line for the remainder of the three-hour session: “Although it pains me to do so, because of the respect I have for the legislative branch of government and my decades-long record of cooperating with Congress, under the advice of my attorneys, I will invoke my right under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution to refrain from answering your questions.”
According to CNN, Fauci has testified before Congress more than 250 times over his career and had never previously invoked the Fifth Amendment, underscoring how unusual the move was for a witness with his record of cooperation.
Why the pardon didn’t stop him
The hearing’s central legal tension stemmed from a preemptive pardon former President Joe Biden granted Fauci in January 2025, before leaving office. That pardon shields Fauci from prosecution for any actions connected to his government service before it was issued. Republicans on the committee argued the pardon should have removed his ability to claim the Fifth, since he could no longer be prosecuted for his past conduct.
Fauci’s legal team rejected that reasoning. His lawyers said the pardon does not protect him from new legal exposure created by the hearing itself, specifically, the risk that Republicans could use his sworn testimony to pursue a perjury charge, which would be a new offense committed after the pardon took effect. Al Jazeera reported that Fauci’s attorneys advised him that any answers he gave under oath could be used to build exactly that kind of case.
“It’s against the law to obstruct an investigation of Congress,” Paul said during the hearing, signaling that Republicans do not accept the Fifth Amendment claim as legitimate and see it as an attempt to stonewall a valid congressional inquiry.
A tense and disruptive session
The hearing grew heated beyond the repeated invocations. NBC News reported that Fauci invoked the Fifth 106 times, and video from the session showed lawmakers pressing him directly on whether declining to answer implied guilt, a legal misconception, since invoking the Fifth Amendment is a constitutional protection, not an admission of wrongdoing.
At one point, the situation escalated when Fauci’s own attorney attempted to intervene during the proceedings and was ordered removed from the room by the committee chairman, according to CBS News coverage of the hearing. Democrats on the panel pushed back against Republicans’ characterization of the session, defending Fauci’s right to invoke the amendment and criticizing what they described as an effort to criminalize past public health decisions.
What invoking the Fifth actually means
Legal experts note that the Fifth Amendment protects any witness, regardless of position or prominence, from being compelled to give testimony that could expose them to criminal liability. Its use carries no legal implication of guilt and is a routine, constitutionally guaranteed option available to any witness facing potential prosecution, including in congressional proceedings.
In Fauci’s case, the distinction that matters is time. Biden’s pardon covers conduct that occurred before January 2025, so it cannot protect Fauci from liability tied to statements he might make in 2026. If Paul’s committee later concludes that Fauci gave false testimony in earlier appearances or during this hearing, prosecutors could still pursue a perjury or false-statements case rooted in that later conduct, the exact risk his attorneys said drove the decision to invoke the Fifth.
What comes next
Republicans on the committee have raised the possibility of holding Fauci in contempt of Congress for declining to answer, a move that would require further committee action and could trigger a separate legal fight over the validity of his Fifth Amendment claim.
The episode has reopened broader debate over accountability for pandemic-era decisions, the limits of presidential pardon power, and how Congress can compel testimony from former officials who invoke constitutional protections. With Paul signaling he intends to continue pursuing the matter, the confrontation between Fauci and the committee appears likely to extend well beyond this week’s hearing.