Fauci faces contempt vote Thursday after 111 Fifth Amendment pleas

A Senate panel has obtained a copy of Anthony Fauci's pandemic-era iPhone as the committee prepares to vote Thursday on holding him in contempt.

The Senate Homeland Security committee votes Thursday on holding Anthony Fauci in contempt after he invoked the Fifth Amendment 111 times, as investigators obtained a copy of his pandemic-era iPhone.

"I think there's another legal question that the courts may have to decide upon, and that is whether or not a presidential pardon offers you complete immunity," Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who chairs the committee, said after last week's hearing.

The iPhone copy was transferred by the Department of Health and Human Services to the Senate Homeland Security Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, chaired by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., according to a spokesperson for the senator. The transfer follows HHS's release of more than 1,000 pages of Fauci's personal diaries, spanning 2019 to 2022, days before the hearing. Paul and Johnson have received millions of additional Fauci-related pages from government servers, people familiar with the matter said.

The contempt resolution, released Tuesday, would send the committee's report to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, where contempt of Congress carries a fine and up to one year in prison. Paul said he plans to refer the matter directly to the Justice Department rather than wait for a full Senate vote, which would require 60 votes and come after the chamber's recess until early September.

The legal fight centers on whether former President Joe Biden's pardon of Fauci, granted on the final full day of his term, strips the former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director of his Fifth Amendment protections. The pardon covers any potential federal offenses committed between Jan. 1, 2014, and Jan. 19, 2025.

Republicans on the panel argue the pardon eliminates Fauci's right to remain silent. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., cited the 1896 Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Walker, which held that a witness who has received a pardon "cannot longer set up his privilege." Paul's resolution alleges Fauci "waived his right to claim the privilege" by opening his testimony with prepared remarks that addressed the subject under inquiry.

Fauci's attorneys dispute that reading, arguing the pardon only covers federal crimes and leaves him exposed to state-level prosecution. Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier has opened his own investigation into Fauci, one of at least four Republican-led states pursuing probes. "Chairman Paul's public crusade against Dr. Fauci can only be described as an obsessive vendetta," his attorneys said in a statement, arguing the senator's stated aim of putting Fauci "behind bars" contradicts his claim that Fauci should speak freely.

The Pardon Question

Whether Fauci was permitted to invoke the Fifth Amendment is a subject of legal debate. University of North Carolina law professor Michael Gerhardt told the Associated Press that Fauci was "invited into a situation where everyone in the country understood that Rand Paul was trying to set him up for a criminal prosecution," calling silence "one of the smartest things to do." Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., a former U.S. attorney, said the pardon "makes no difference whatsoever because it is for actions before the beginning of the Trump term."

Fauci, who served as the nation's top infectious disease expert for nearly four decades and said he testified to or briefed Congress more than 200 times, opened last week's hearing by accusing Paul of an "unhinged obsession" with him. He invoked his constitutional rights 111 times over three hours, declining to answer even basic questions about his role in the pandemic response. The phone transfer was facilitated by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a fierce Fauci critic who wrote a 2021 book accusing the doctor of close ties to pharmaceutical companies.

The outcome carries implications beyond Fauci himself. A criminal referral from the committee would test whether the Justice Department pursues contempt charges against a witness who invoked the Fifth Amendment after receiving a presidential pardon — a question the courts have not squarely resolved. Democrats, led by ranking member Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., argue Paul is sidestepping the full Senate by sending the referral directly to the DOJ, a move that would set a precedent for future committee chairs to act unilaterally. The story has no direct impact on financial markets, but it tests the boundaries of congressional oversight authority and the legal weight of a presidential pardon.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.