Should Dr. Fauci be charged with Contempt?
Senators Rand Paul and Josh Hawley are blowing our taxes to chase wild Covid-19 conspiracies. Although Fauci was pardoned, they are attempting to prosecute him in the Senate for remaining silent.
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) is blowing our taxes on his bizarre life mission to prove a conspiracy theory that the U.S. Government funded “dangerous” research in China that resulted in a man-made mutation of the Coronavirus. He claims it was “maybe” leaked out of the Wuhan Institute of Virology as COVID-19.
Mind you, Rand was an ophthalmologist for 17 years before becoming a lifelong politician. He performed LASIK corrections and has no demonstrable experience with infectious diseases. In fact, Paul was sued twice for medical malpractice.
Paul’s primary target is Dr. Anthony Fauci, who served throughout President Trump’s first term as the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).
President Joseph Biden granted Fauci a full and unconditional pardon for any offense he may have committed from January 1, 2014 through January 19, 2025, “arising from or in any manner related to his service as Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force or the White House COVID-19 Response Team, or as Chief Medical Advisor to the President.”
Paul subpoenaed Fauci to testify at a Senate committee hearing last Wednesday (July 29, 2026). In response to most questions, Fauci asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify and remained silent. Senators Paul and Hawley expressed bombastic, pre-scripted anger, that only the electors of the lowest IQ would believe.
The Fifth Amendment privilege does not evaporate upon receipt of a pardon.
The Fifth Amendment declares that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.
Paul argued that because Fauci was pardoned, he no longer has the privilege. Senator Josh Hawley argued “When he has been pardoned, he may not stand upon his privilege.” Hawley cited to the Supreme Court case Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591 (1896). But Hawley’s reliance on Brown is inapt. Apparently Hawley did not learn how to read case law at Yale nor while interning for Justice John Roberts.
In Brown, the Supreme Court did not determine whether an individual’s Fifth Amendment privilege is waived if he receives a presidential pardon.
Brown, was an auditor for a railway company. He was called as a witness to testify in federal court before a grand jury about certain issues involving other railway officers who had allegedly violated the Interstate Commerce Act of 1893.
The Act had a special provision that no one could be excused from testifying before the Interstate Commerce Commission on the grounds that his testimony would tend to incriminate him. But more importantly, the Act provides that no person could be prosecuted on account of their testimony.
Notwithstanding, Brown refused to testify and asserted the Fifth Amendment, he was held in contempt. He challenged it and lost.
The Supreme Court had to determine whether the FifthAmendment conflicted with the Interstate Commerce Act of 1893’s specific provision that:
no person shall be excused from attending and testifying or from producing books, papers, tariffs, contracts, agreements and documents before the Interstate Commerce Commission, or in obedience to the subpoena of the Commission, . . . on the ground or for the reason that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of him, may tend to criminate him or subject him to a penalty or forfeiture. But no person shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter or thing, concerning which he may testify, or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, before said Commission, or in obedience to its subpoena, or the subpoena of either of them, or in any such case or proceeding.
The Supreme Court analyzed whether the Interstate Commerce Act of 1893 protected Brown sufficiently enough such that Fifth Amendment privileges were unnecessary. The Court reiterated prior case law that if a statute impermissibly supplants the Fifth Amendment when it compels a person’s testimony while leaving him subject to criminal prosecution. On the other hand, if the statute affords him such immunity against future prosecution, then the witness must be compelled to testify notwithstanding the Fifth Amendment.
The Fifth Amendment protects Fauci from incriminating himself with respect to state laws
It seems lost on the Right that a presidential pardon can only provide immunity from federal crimes—not state crimes.
Paul remains adamant, however, that Fauci should be held in contempt for not answering questions in the Senate committee hearing. Perhaps, Paul should stick to being an ophthalmologist, turned career politician, and leave the legal work to attorneys.
The reality is yes, Biden granted Fauci sweeping immunities from federal crimes. But Fauci can still reasonably assert the Fifth Amendment on the grounds that he believes his testimony could incriminate him under state laws. It’s that simple. Fauci’s attorneys merely need to argue that he reasonably believes his testimony could be used in a criminal prosecution or could leave to other evidence that might be so used. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 177.
The privilege applies strictly when there is a real an appreciable danger of prosecution, rather than a danger of an imaginary, unsubstantial, or sentimental character. Fauci’s attorneys could easily cite to evidence of Paul’s statements over the years where he alleges Fauci has committed a range of unspecified crimes and belongs behind bars.
Moreover, Biden’s pardon does not protect Fauci from being prosecuted for perjuring himself during the Senate committee hearing.
Before Rand began questioning Fauci during the hearing, Rand made a lengthy and bizarre opening statement as if he were a prosecutor in front of a jury. Rand had deployed obviously pre-drawn conclusions that Fauci had committed certain crimes. The whole hearing was merely a show that Rand and Hawley could clip farm and use as marketing materials to help other Republicans campaign for the mid-term elections.
Paul issued a subpoena to Dr. Fauci, ordering him to appear to testify last Wednesday (July 29, 2026) before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
Paul’s weak threat that Fauci will be held in contempt
Paul’s next move is to call together a vote in his Senate committee on whether the committee should issue a contempt resolution against Fauci. Paul threatened to call the vote tomorrow. A majority of the committee has to vote. If the panel votes in favor, then the issue goes to the entire Senate to vote on.
That’s right, the full Senate, all 100 senators must vote on the issue. 51 of them must vote in favor of certifying contempt. Republicans have a working majority of 53-47 in the Senate, i.e. 45 Democrats and 2 independents. Democrats would likely lead a filibuster on any vote. Assuming that Paul and Hawley could convince their colleagues to certify contempt, the issue would likely be referred to the U.S. Attorney’s office in D.C. for potential criminal prosecution under 2 USC § 192. If that office brought charges against Fauci, his legal team would obviously have multiple avenues to defend him against issue and the case would work likely weave a slow path up to the Supreme Court. The Senate could also pursue civil enforcement and ask the federal court to compel Fauci to answer questions. Meanwhile, Americans are facing extreme hikes to food, gas, rent, and their health insurance.