Former White House chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci is on “solid legal ground” after repeatedly invoking his constitutional right against self-incrimination during a contentious Senate hearing on the US government’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, his lawyer has said.
Fauci appeared before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on Wednesday, where he declined to answer questions more than 100 times by invoking the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution.
The hearing was chaired by Republican Senator Rand Paul, a long time critic of Fauci, who suggested the former health official could face criminal contempt proceedings for refusing to answer lawmakers’ questions.
“I think there is a very real chance that he could be prosecuted for that,” Paul told CBS News after the hearing.
Paul has repeatedly accused Fauci of attempting to conceal the origins of Covid-19 and has alleged that US government funding supported research at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology, where one theory suggests the pandemic began. Fauci has consistently denied any wrongdoing.
Fauci’s attorney, David Schertler, rejected the senator’s claims, saying his client was exercising a constitutionally protected right.
“We are completely confident that Dr Fauci has a valid Fifth Amendment privilege here and is on solid legal ground in asserting it,” Schertler said, adding that “Rand Paul may be a doctor, but he is not a lawyer.”
Invoking the Fifth Amendment is a common legal safeguard that allows individuals to decline answering questions that could potentially incriminate them. It is routinely used in criminal and civil proceedings and is not itself a criminal offence.
Paul said the committee is expected to vote next week on whether to recommend holding Fauci in criminal contempt of Congress. If approved by the committee, the measure would require passage by the full Senate before being referred to federal prosecutors for possible legal action.
Legal experts, however, questioned whether such an effort would succeed.
Daniel Schuman, executive director of the American Governance Institute, noted that Republicans hold only a narrow majority on the committee, meaning any dissent within the party could block the recommendation. Even if it advanced, the full Senate would still face procedural and political hurdles before any referral could be made.
Former House legal counsel Michael Stern also noted that previous congressional attempts to hold witnesses in contempt after invoking the Fifth Amendment have not been successful.
Before leaving office, former President Joe Biden issued a pre-emptive federal pardon covering Fauci’s official actions between 2014 and 2025. Paul has argued that the scope of that pardon could ultimately be tested in court, while also suggesting that any conduct occurring after the pardon period could still be subject to legal scrutiny.
Meanwhile, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced that his office would examine whether Fauci could face investigation under state law, although no specific allegations or potential offences were identified.
During the hearing, Republicans questioned Fauci over changes in public health guidance during the pandemic and cited his personal diaries, arguing they showed he privately entertained the possibility that Covid-19 originated in a laboratory despite publicly supporting the natural origin theory.
Several Democratic lawmakers defended Fauci, with Senator Maggie Hassan accusing Republicans of attempting to “entrap” him during the proceedings.
President Donald Trump also criticised Fauci on social media, renewing his claim that the coronavirus originated in the Wuhan laboratory and accusing Fauci of protecting China.
The origins of Covid-19 remain disputed. US intelligence agencies have reached differing conclusions, while the World Health Organization (WHO) has said the natural spillover from animals to humans remains the best-supported theory based on available evidence, although it has acknowledged that the matter remains inconclusive.
Fauci served as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) for decades and became one of the most prominent public health figures during the pandemic. He has previously disclosed receiving death threats linked to his role during the Covid crisis.
Leave a comment