Republican US Senator Rand Paul asks Justice Department to prosecute Fauci after contempt vote

Republican Senator Rand Paul has referred Dr. Anthony Fauci to the Justice Department for prosecution after a Senate committee voted to hold him in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer COVID-19 pandemic questions.

Republican U.S. Senator Rand Paul on ​Thursday asked the Justice Department to prosecute Dr. Anthony Fauci for refusing to answer questions ‌about ​the COVID-19 pandemic after a Senate committee voted to hold the former top infectious disease official in contempt of Congress. Paul sent the referral after the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which he chairs, approved a contempt resolution on a party-line vote with Republicans in favor and Democrats opposed. The resolution accuses Fauci, 85, of failing to obey a congressional subpoena. The move followed a hearing last week where Fauci, who retired in 2022 as ‌the head of the national infectious-disease agency and a presidential adviser, invoked his constitutional right against self-incrimination more than 100 times. Paul sent the referral, a formal request to consider criminal charges, after the contempt finding. But the Kentucky senator, a longtime Fauci antagonist, bypassed a referral vote by the full Senate. He described a full Senate vote as unnecessary. Democrats said Paul was violating Senate rules by skipping the vote, which would likely fail to achieve the necessary 60-vote majority, and called the move dangerous and unprecedented. A Justice Department spokesperson confirmed copies of the referral had been sent to the DOJ leadership and the U.S. Attorney's Office ‌in Washington, D.C.

"We have received the document, we are reviewing it and will work with the Senate accordingly," the spokesperson said. The development was the sharpest escalation yet in a broad Republican and Trump administration campaign to re-litigate the pandemic and assign blame for the toll of actions ‌taken as part of the U.S. response.

President Donald Trump said the Justice Department should potentially prosecute Fauci, comparing him to allies Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon, who both served four months in prison for contempt of Congress after defying subpoenas. "Maybe he should. What he did was far more serious than a lot of crimes, frankly," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office when asked if Fauci should be prosecuted. Contempt of Congress, a federal misdemeanor, can be punished with a fine of up to $100,000 and up to 12 months in prison.

FACE OF U.S. PANDEMIC RESPONSE Fauci's attorney, David Schertler, said Thursday's vote was "a crude political stunt intended to punish Dr. Fauci for exercising his constitutional rights."

"Dr. Fauci has committed no crime — and ⁠Senator Paul knows it," ​Schertler said, describing the resolution as a continuation of a "personal vendetta." Paul denied this, saying ⁠in his opening statement: "Seeking the truth is not a witch hunt." He said the committee was seeking accountability to prevent "a repeat of the mistakes and the very real consequences of the past."

Fauci, who led the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for 38 years, became the face of the U.S. COVID-19 pandemic response and a primary target of anger ⁠over measures taken against a virus that killed more than 1.1 million Americans. Paul and other Republicans have pursued a years-long investigation, including hard-nosed tactics such as publishing Fauci's daily diary entries and obtaining the contents of his phone, in a bid to prove Republican assertions that Fauci orchestrated a cover-up of the coronavirus' origins. The senator claims that ​Fauci's institute funded risky virus research in China that sparked the pandemic through a lab leak there. Fauci denies the accusation, and the National Institutes of Health has also rejected it, saying the viruses studied with U.S. funding differed from the one that caused COVID-19.

U.S. ⁠intelligence agencies and scientists remain divided over whether a lab leak or natural transmission from animals sparked the pandemic. FAUCI'S PRESIDENTIAL PARDON

Fauci, before invoking the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution at the start of last week's hearing, said Paul had summoned him only to force testimony backing the senator's repeated public pledges to see him imprisoned. Trump and many conservatives criticized Fauci's handling of COVID-19 ⁠including ​his guidance on lockdowns, mask-wearing, social distancing and vaccines. While Fauci's recommendations were backed by then-current science, the issue became heavily politicized. Recommendations were being made by numerous scientists and public health officials at the time, not any one individual, said Jennifer Kates, senior vice president and director of the Global and Public Health Policy Program at KFF, a health policy research group.

"When new information became available, recommendations changed, but not always fast enough or clearly enough," Kates said. Former President Joe Biden preemptively pardoned Fauci in January 2025 to guard against "unjustified and politically motivated prosecutions" related to COVID or his role in the response. ⁠The pardon does not cover subsequent conduct. Paul said Fauci had no valid Fifth Amendment claim because the pardon nullified it and because Fauci waived any remaining protection by testifying.

The U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, run by Trump ally Jeanine Pirro, could review any referral from Congress ⁠on Fauci and decide whether to seek a grand jury indictment. Members of Congress regularly ⁠refer matters to the Justice Department for potential prosecution, but such communications carry no special legal weight.

In contrast, the department is legally required to consider a referral for contempt of Congress that is approved by either the full Senate or the House of Representatives. Stanley Brand, a lawyer specializing in congressional investigations, said Paul's decision to bypass a full Senate vote could render his referral "null and void." "There's no authority for the Justice Department to ‌take up a contempt of Congress prosecution without following ‌the procedures specified in the statute," Brand said. "This won't pass muster."