The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has voted to hold Dr. Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress, escalating a partisan clash over his pandemic‑era role and his decision to invoke the Fifth Amendment more than 100 times during a recent hearing. The vote is a referral, not a conviction, and now goes to the Justice Department, which will decide whether to seek criminal charges.
What the committee voted on
On Thursday, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, chaired by Sen. Rand Paul (R‑Ky.), approved a resolution to hold Fauci in contempt of Congress by an 8–5 vote. All Republicans voted yes; Democrats voted no, with two additional Democratic “no” votes recorded by proxy in some accounts.
The resolution accuses Fauci of “willfully refusing” to answer questions at a July hearing despite appearing under subpoena. It directs that a contempt referral be sent to the Justice Department, asking federal prosecutors to present the case to a grand jury for possible criminal charges.
Notably, Paul is seeking to bypass a vote of the full Senate. As AP and Reuters explain, contempt referrals traditionally go from a committee to the full chamber, where 60 votes would be needed to advance in the current Senate, making passage unlikely. Paul said he “did not want to waste time” on a floor vote that would probably fail, and the resolution asks DOJ to act on the committee’s referral alone.
What is contempt of Congress?
Contempt of Congress is a federal misdemeanor that applies when someone defies a congressional subpoena or otherwise obstructs an investigation. The Hill notes that it is punishable by up to one year in jail and fines of up to $100,000 if a grand jury indicts and a court convicts.
The process is:
1- A committee or chamber finds the witness in contempt and votes to refer the case.
2- Congress sends the referral to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.
3- DOJ decides whether to prosecute, it is not obligated to.
4- If DOJ proceeds, it presents the case to a grand jury, which may or may not return an indictment.
In other words, Thursday’s vote does not itself make Fauci guilty of anything. It asks prosecutors to consider a criminal case.
Why Republicans say Fauci’s Fifth Amendment plea was improper
At the July hearing, Fauci appeared under subpoena before the committee as part of a Republican‑led investigation into the origins of COVID‑19 and his pandemic‑era decisions. In his opening statement, he said Paul has “an unhinged obsession” with him and warned that the hearing was designed to trick him into saying something that could be used to pursue perjury or other charges.
On advice of counsel, Fauci then invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self‑incrimination “in response to every question he was asked,” according to CBS News, declining to answer more than 100 times over roughly three hours.
Paul and other Republicans argue he cannot do that, for two main reasons:
- Pre‑emptive Biden pardon: On his last day in office in January 2025, President Joe Biden granted Fauci an unconditional “pre‑emptive pardon” covering his federal conduct from 2014 through January 19, 2025. Paul says that pardon eliminates any realistic fear of federal prosecution for past actions, and therefore removes the basis for a Fifth Amendment claim.
- Waiver by testifying: The contempt resolution and GOP statements also argue Fauci “waived” any remaining Fifth Amendment right by giving an opening statement on the very subjects under investigation, the pandemic response, and COVID‑19 origins, while then refusing to answer follow‑up questions.
In Paul’s words at Thursday’s markup: “We are not voting on Dr. Fauci’s opinions or policies. We are voting on whether a witness, who has received the benefit of a sweeping federal pardon, can be ordered by this committee to answer questions, and then defy that order without consequence.” He added: “The witness had many chances to answer the questions pertinent to our investigation, and he made his decision 111 times.”
Fauci’s defense: fear of perjury and future charges
Fauci and his lawyers say the Fifth Amendment claim is valid and that the contempt vote is political.
In his opening statement, Fauci told senators he was invoking the Fifth because he believed Paul and other Republicans were trying to elicit statements that could be used to accuse him of lying under oath. He cited Paul’s repeated public pledges that Fauci should end up “behind bars,” and the committee’s release of more than 1,100 pages of his private journals from 2019–2022 ahead of the hearing, as evidence of what he called a hostile effort to build a criminal case.
AP notes that while Biden’s pardon shields Fauci from federal charges for conduct through January 2025, it does not protect him from state‑level prosecutions or from criminal liability tied to any testimony he gives now, such as perjury or false statements.
Fauci’s attorney, David Schertler, called Thursday’s vote “a crude political stunt intended to punish Dr. Fauci for exercising his constitutional right,” and said they are confident DOJ will “see this for what it is” and decline to bring charges.
What Republicans were trying to ask
The contempt referral arises from an investigation that goes well beyond the single hearing. Paul and allied Republicans say they want Fauci to answer questions about:
- Whether U.S. grants funded high‑risk research that may have contributed to the emergence of the coronavirus.
- His past testimony on that funding, which they contend was misleading or false.
- Pandemic policy decisions, including guidance that influenced school closures, mask mandates and vaccine requirements.
Fauci has repeatedly denied funding work that caused the pandemic and has defended his past testimony. He has also argued that many restrictions were imposed by states, localities, and private employers, not directly by him.
The July hearing came after Republicans obtained his personal journals and, according to the Washington Post, a copy of a phone he used as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases — moves they said would help them reconstruct his decisions and communications during COVID‑19.
What happens next
The contempt vote now sends Fauci’s case to DOJ, which will decide whether to take it further. AP and NPR note several key points:
- DOJ is not obliged to prosecute; it can decline.
- If DOJ acts, it would present the case to a grand jury in Washington, D.C.
- Any criminal contempt case would likely raise constitutional questions about the scope of the Fifth Amendment and the effect of a pre‑emptive pardon on that right.
Politically, the vote is a clear escalation of a years‑long effort by Paul and other Republicans to re‑litigate core questions about the pandemic and Fauci’s role in it. Legally, whether it leads to an actual trial depends entirely on the Justice Department’s assessment of the strength and appropriateness of the case.
For now, the contempt label is a committee finding, not a conviction, and it underscores how polarizing the country’s former top infectious disease official remains, even nearly four years after he left government service.
