Senate panel votes 8-7 to hold Fauci in contempt after he invoked Fifth Amendment over 100 times

Committee vote

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted 8-7 along party lines on Thursday to hold Dr. Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress, after the former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director invoked the Fifth Amendment more than 100 times during a hearing on July 29. Committee chair Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, pushed the referral, arguing that a preemptive pardon Fauci received from former President Joe Biden in January 2025 nullified his self-incrimination claim. The pardon covered Fauci's official actions from 2014 through the end of Biden's presidency but does not extend to subsequent conduct.

Fauci, 85, who led NIAID for 38 years and became the face of the US pandemic response, told the panel that Paul had summoned him only to force testimony backing the senator's repeated public pledges to see him imprisoned. In his opening statement at the hearing, Fauci said Paul has an "obsession with calling for my prosecution."

The only conclusion I can reach is that the sole reason he is calling me before this committee is to get me to say something, anything, that could vindicate his repeated public pledges that I end up, in his words, 'behind bars'.

Legal path forward

A contempt referral typically requires approval by the full Senate, where a 60-vote majority would be needed to overcome a filibuster. Republicans hold 53 seats, making Democratic support essential but highly unlikely given the party's defense of Fauci. Paul has suggested bypassing the Senate floor entirely, telling reporters he could send the referral directly to the Justice Department with a legal brief.

This way we don't sit a month waiting to determine whether or not to bring it to the Senate floor. It will immediately be referred over, and I think it's important for them to look at.

Legal experts question whether a committee can trigger the contempt process without a full Senate vote. Stan Brand, former counsel to House Speaker Tip O'Neill who represented Trump aides Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino during contempt proceedings, described Paul as being in a "legal netherland."

This is just another example of boys gone wild, tearing loose from the mores of procedure, regular order, constitutional doctrine to vindicate some political vendetta. And it's going to fail like all the others have failed.

Brand added that a grand jury cannot pursue a contempt indictment without the approval of the Senate or its leader, calling any such attempt "flawed ab initio."

DOJ and state-level scrutiny

If the referral proceeds, the US Attorney's Office in Washington, run by Trump ally Jeanine Pirro, would review it and decide whether to seek a grand jury indictment. Pirro has drawn Trump's criticism after she moved to drop charges against former Olympian David Hearn, accused of damaging the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. Trump said she "folded like an umbrella" and "choked."

Fauci also faces state-level scrutiny, with Louisiana joining Florida and Alabama in investigating his pandemic conduct. A federal pardon does not preclude state prosecutions.

Democratic opposition

Senator Gary Peters of Michigan, the panel's top Democrat, accused Paul of conducting a "rushed investigation" and warned the vote could harm the committee's ability to conduct future investigations. Peters said the move "disregards constitutional protections long recognised by the US Senate" and that sending the contempt resolution directly to DOJ without a full Senate vote would be "even more dangerous and a widely unprecedented move."

Two Trump aides from his first term, Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro, spent four months in prison in 2024 for failing to comply with congressional subpoenas. Unlike Fauci, who invoked the Fifth Amendment, they simply did not appear to testify.