Fauci Congressional Hearing

Senator Rand Paul (18:29):

The committee will now come to order.

(18:29)
One million Americans died from COVID- 19. Some estimate as many as 15 million people died worldwide from COVID-19. Publicly, Anthony Fauci promoted the theory that the virus arose naturally. While privately, he was well aware of a mountain of evidence suggesting the virus originated in the lab.

(18:49)
The American people deserve answers. The American people deserve to know why dangerous research was funded by NIAID in a totalitarian country in a lab that lacked acceptable safety standards. The decision to fund dangerous gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China will likely go down in history as perhaps one of the worst public health decisions.

(19:11)
Frankly, the American people deserve an apology. I hope today Dr. Fauci will come clean, admit it was a mistake to fund dangerous research in China, admit that the risk of this dangerous research exceeded any possible benefits, ask forgiveness and pledge to help our government devise safeguards so a manmade epidemic never happens again.

(19:34)
Instead of an apology, you have for years avoided responsibility. Regarding the lockdowns, you argue that you did not personally issue every lockdown order, close every school or impose every mandate, but officials across the country invoked your authority to justify these decisions, and you presented your recommendations not as judgements open to debate but as dictates of science itself. Your own words demonstrate that you understood the influence you exercised.

(20:04)
On March 14th, 2020, you wrote that, "The task force recommendations were driven by me," yourself, "Deb, and CDC." The next day you wrote that you had convinced Mayor Bill de Blasio to close the New York City schools, so you were involved. That same night, Governor Gavin Newsom's chief of staff told you that the Governor had decided to close California schools, bars, and restaurants after watching you on television. Presidents, governors, mayors, school boards, corporations and Congress all bear responsibility for the decisions they made.

(20:39)
The COVID lockdown, however, could never have been inflicted without you aiding and abetting the crime. Children lost years of education. Small businesses, built over a lifetime, disappeared. Patients delayed cancer screenings and other medical care. Families were separated from dying relatives. Workers were ordered to accept a medical procedure or lose their jobs. Worship assembly, employment, education, and travel were restricted in the name of science. While you did not impose every restriction, you used your public authority to justify them.

(21:14)
While you concluded publicly that COVID occurred naturally, your private record tells a different story. In early 2020, your handpicked virologist warned that the virus appeared to have been manipulated in the lab. In a conference call concerning the origin of the virus, all but two of the participants believed deliberate insertion was possible.

(21:35)
Your concern was not merely theoretical. That same week, you led an urgent effort to determine whether your own agency had funded the research related to these experiments that were now under suspicion. Hours later, your assistant reported that the Wuhan experiments had indeed been reviewed and approved by the NIH. Those were not the actions of officials who believed that a research-related origin was an absurd conspiracy theory. They were the actions of officials urgently trying to determine whether their agency funding was connected to the research under discussion connected to the pandemic.

(22:12)
You could not hide that your agency had funded the Wuhan research or your long history of defending gain-of-function research. The only alternative left was to argue that COVID-19 did not originate in the Wuhan lab. You were not a detached observer. You had an institutional interest in the public believing that federally funded research had nothing to do with the pandemic. It was a conflict of interest from the very beginning.

(22:40)
The authors of the proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 privately had serious doubts about a natural origin. Within days though, they flipped, and they all wrote in proximal origin that the virus was almost certainly not a laboratory construct. That paper was then used by the government and the media and you to discredit Americans who were asking the same questions that you and the authors were asking yourselves privately.

(23:08)
You even cited proximal origin from the White House podium. You held it out as evidence that the virus could not have been engineered, but you didn't disclose your role and the discussions that preceded the writing of the paper. You did not disclose the author's original concerns. You did not reveal that you had been part of the paper, that you had read and offered editorial comments on the paper before it was published before you began using it as evidence that it couldn't have originated in the lab. You did not disclose that you had immediately investigated, yourself, whether NIAID funding might be connected to the research. You did not tell the American people the full story.

(23:50)
Duly released private messages indicate that the doubts with the authors and others didn't disappear after the publication. So while this was being waived at the White House to show that it couldn't come from the lab, the authors were still privately continuing to assign a meaningful probability to a laboratory origin, one thing in public and another in private.

(24:13)
Some of the same scientists discussed avoiding email and carefully managing communications that might eventually be obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. The pattern is straightforward. Privately there was alarm, then an immediate inquiry to see of NIAID's possible exposure to funding, then a rapid public declaration of certainty, continued private doubt, and then years of resistance to disclosure. The question is why? The only logical answer is that your primary concern was avoiding culpability. Your primary concern was hiding the fact that you had approved the funding for this dangerous research.

(24:53)
Your supportive gain-of-function research is extensive and longstanding. In 2011, your agency funded Ron Fouchier's laboratory when it mutated the avian flu until it could spread through the air between mammals. This was the tipping point. This is when others became worried. You funded this. You advocated for this. The federal government's own biosecurity board though recommended withholding the details of these experiments because of the danger the research posed. People were concerned that publishing it was publishing a roadmap to creating bioweapons around the world. But you sided with the gain-of-function scientist, Fouchier, and argued that the benefits of publishing the research far outweighed the risks.

(25:41)
You defended this avian flu transmissibility experiments as critical research. You wrote that even if a scientist became infected and triggered a pandemic, the benefits of the gain-of-function experiments outweigh the risk. In 2014, your agency, NIAID, began funding the Wuhan bat coronavirus work. In 2015, Ralph Baric and the Chinese scientist, Shi Zhengli, published NIAID-supported research combining a bat coronavirus spike protein with a SARS backbone. The resulting virus could infect human airway cells. It's a novel virus that now can affect human cells. It gained transmissibility. It gained function.

(26:28)
In 2018, the same group of scientists, EcoHealth, Baric, Shi, and their collaborators submitted the DEFUSE proposal, which involved the insertion of a furin cleavage site into the coronavirus. DARPA rejected it as too dangerous. When COVID was sequenced though, early on in January of 2020, within days, scientists discovered that, lo and behold, it had a novel furin cleavage site just as had been proposed in the DEFUSE product. This was either an extraordinary coincidence or a smoking gun, evidence that the Chinese had created COVID-19. It made the laboratory origin question more legitimate, and it made your categorical public denials indefensible.

(27:17)
On May 11th, 2021, you told the Senate, "The NIH has never ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology." When I gave you the opportunity to correct the record, to reconsider the statement, you responded that you had never before lied to Congress.

(27:37)
We were then told that only the government's narrowest regulation of definition counted here. That you could define gain of function in one way in which this wasn't gain of function in which all of the common sense of the world would be thrown out, all of the idea that the mice were dying and the virus was more transmissible didn't matter because you had a technical definition that allowed you to fund it. But the real question is, was it dangerous? Was it a wise decision to fund this? And you haven't deviated from that. You've never admitted that it could have been a mistake funding this research in China.

(28:10)
The American people weren't asking for a semantics debate over what is gain of function. They were asking, does common sense say this research was dangerous in Wuhan? They wanted to know whether their money-funded experiments in Wuhan that made bat coronaviruses better able to infect humans. The answer is yes. They wanted to know whether NIAID adequately supervised their work. The answer is no. When you defended this research, you described its benefits in the broadest terms. But when Congress demanded accountability, you hid behind the narrowest possible definition. You can't have it both ways.

(28:48)
Your conduct concerning federal records raises further questions. It is a crime to destroy federal records, yet our investigation reveals your assistant diligently reported that she deleted tons of emails. In 2024, you testified that you did not delete federal records. Who's telling the truth? You or your assistant?

(29:10)
The committee has obtained repeated instructions from you telling federal officials to delete communications. On February 2nd, 2020, one day after a origins call, you told Francis Collins, "Please delete this email after you read it."

(29:24)
The committee asked for your voluntary cooperation to come today. Your appearance had to be compelled by subpoena. You're here today under duress. You are here today because of the Court ordering it.

(29:37)
President Biden issued you a sweeping pardon extending back to 2014, the same pardon he gave to his son, Hunter. A pardon may protect a person from criminal prosecution. It doesn't rewrite history. It does not erase documents. It does not convert a misleading statement into a truthful one, and it does not prevent Congress from establishing what happened. There will be another pandemic. There will be another crisis, and there will again be officials who insist that uncertainty must be hidden for the public's own good. They will demand obedience. They will invoke science, I am the science, as though it were a commandment. They will argue that government officials cannot be questioned because questioning them would undermine public trust. They have it backwards. It is secrecy that destroys trust. It is arrogance that destroys trust. It is censorship that destroys trust, and it is the refusal to admit error that destroys trust. That loss of trust may be your most damaging legacy. Trust can't be ordered. It has to be earned. No scientist is above scrutiny. No government official is beyond accountability. And no public servant has the right to treat the suffering of millions of Americans as a footnote to his preferred version of history.

(30:59)
I now recognize Senator Peters for his opening remarks.

Senator Gary Peters (31:04):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(31:06)
The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has a long and a very proud history of conducting serious oversight on behalf of the American people. When this committee has been at its best, Democrats and Republicans have worked together to investigate complicated issues, to follow the facts wherever they may lead, and produce recommendations that actually strengthen our nation's security and improve government functions.

(31:38)
That bipartisan tradition has produced meaningful work following Hurricane Katrina, the January 6th attack on the US Capitol, failures at the Secret Service, and countless other matters.

(31:52)
Unfortunately, today's hearing is the latest step in the Chairman's sharp departure from that long tradition. This hearing appears to be a culmination of months of biased and selected efforts by the majority under the guise of a committee investigation to basically legitimize a predetermined conclusion that was reached years ago.

(32:17)
In 2021, the Chairman has called for today's witness to be fired, to be arrested, accused him of leading coverups and conspiracies. He has even featured the witness prominently in fundraising emails and on the cover of his book. He has also called for the cancellation of the witness's security detail, despite the fact the witness and his family have received numerous credible death threats.

(32:47)
When I served as Chairman, Senator Paul and I launched a bipartisan biosecurity investigation that included oversight of risky research and the origins of COVID-19. Because we agreed that the committee's work would be stronger if we did it in a bipartisan...

Senator Gary Peters (33:00):

... agreed that the Committee's work would be stronger if we did it in a bipartisan manner and just followed the facts. That was and continues to be an area of legitimate and certainly needed oversight. As Chairman Senator Paul has taken the opposite approach, he has abandoned longstanding practice by blocking minority participation in Committee oversight actions, and has chosen to selectively release Committee records that the minority has never had any access to in order to support his pre-drawn conclusions. The Chairman has repeatedly excluded Committee's minority and withheld documents and evidence from members that are entitled to receive them, disregarding longstanding Senate rules and Committee precedent that have preserved the credibility of our oversight in this Committee for decades.

(33:56)
I have raised these concerns directly with the Chairman because it's not just what we investigate that matters, but how we conduct that investigation. That also matters. One-sided investigations designed to validate predetermined conclusions do not serve the American people who sent us to actually undercover the truth and to solve problems. I wrote to the Chairman requesting that he adhere to Committee rules, but instead of addressing concerns that I raised, he removed part of the Committee's website from the public view. This move not only prevented the public from being able to view those list of concerns, it adds serious questions about the desire for transparency, and legitimate oversight of this matter.

(34:44)
But what makes today's hearing particularly disappointing is not simply the Chairman's actions, but what we could be using this Committee's true and time, oversight, responsibilities to accomplish. This Committee has not held its annual threats hearing at all this Congress. We have not held a budget hearing for the Department of Homeland Security. There are important hearings that we would have the opportunity to discuss as to how to strengthen our Homeland Security across the board. No hearings on those topics. Instead of focusing on the national security challenges that we are facing in our country right now, because today's hearing looks backwards, revisiting questions this Committee has already examined, including through bipartisan work that Senator Paul and I conducted together when I served as Chairman of this Committee.

(35:39)
But rather than building on that work to strengthen our preparedness against future disasters, we are instead re-litigating the past. COVID-19 exposed serious deficiencies in our nation's public health infrastructure. We know that. More than one million Americans lost their lives and this Committee should absolutely continue examining how we can better prepare our nation against future biological threats. Those are the kinds of forward-looking, life-saving questions that will help our nation be better prepared to protect the health and the safety of Americans when the next emergency occurs.

(36:18)
Unfortunately, at this precise moment we should be strengthening our capabilities, the Trump administration seems to be doing everything in their power to actually weaken our capabilities. The administration has hollowed out the public health workforce. They have fired, pushed out, and cut funding for public health personnel, shrinking the CDC workforce by a quarter. Thousands of experienced scientists have left government service and with them has gone critical institutional knowledge that cannot be easily replaced, certainly not quickly replaced.

(36:55)
The administration, thanks to political operatives like Russell Vought, has slashed or illegally withheld funding for life-saving medicines and cutting edge technologies that let us rapidly develop them during an emergency. Mr. Vought is now further politicizing the federal grant making process proposing to subject all federal grants, including those for disaster relief, housing development, and cancer research to the whims of political appointees, not nonpartisan experts. All of this has left the American people more vulnerable to infectious disease threats, and we are already tragically seeing the consequences. Staffing and funding cuts have slowed the federal, state, and local response to ongoing outbreak of a foodborne parasite, which has sickened thousands in my home state of Michigan, as well as across the country. At the same time, the administration cuts to global health programs and international partnerships have greatly reduced our ability to contain dangerous diseases like Ebola before they spread to our shores.

(38:01)
We should be examining whether our federal health agencies have the personnel and the resources they need to effectively prevent, detect, and respond to these threats. We should be asking how to strengthen our biodefense efforts to deter our adversaries and prevent biological attacks against our country and how our government can better coordinate and communicate during public health emergencies. These are the kinds of forward-looking matters that are worthy, are worthy, of this Committee's time. Instead, we are here continuing the Chairman's year-long focus on one individual.

(38:42)
History tells us, unfortunately, another pandemic is all but inevitable. The question is whether Congress and this Committee will work to better prepare our country for it or continue looking backward while our public health infrastructure crumbles around us. That is the hearing that we should be having today. Unfortunately, I fear the intent of this hearing is only meant to further a purely partisan agenda and will not, it will not make Americans safer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Rand Paul (39:22):

The accusation that the Committee has denied access to the minority to records is categorically false. This is the most transparent investigation in the history of Congress. We actually created a website and we put all of the information on the website. It continues to operate. The reason it hasn't been accessed is no Democrat ever signed up for it. Not one Democrat. We told them the access. They never asked for the access code. They haven't been on the website because they have not cared about the investigation.

(39:52)
It's a practice of this Committee to swear in the witness. Dr. Fauci, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Dr. Anthony Fauci, you're recognized for five minutes for your opening statement.

Dr. Anthony Fauci (40:15):

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Peters, Members of the Committee, I served at the NIH for over 54 years, 38 of those as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Over that period, I proved that I believe in and respect the value of legitimate Congressional oversight. In fact, I testified before and/or briefed Senate and House Committees well over 200 times over those 38 years. During and after the COVID pandemic, I have appeared multiple times for hearings in the Senate and the House, usually under oath, and sat for several-days-long transcribed sworn interviews answering questions about the very issues that are now the subject of this hearing.

(41:22)
However, given Senator Paul's obvious obsession with calling for my prosecution, his repeated slanderous comments about me, and recently his publicly releasing my unredacted personal diary aimed at embarrassing and intimidating me, 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."

(42:11)
Any reasonable person who has followed his unhinged obsession with me would readily come to the same conclusion. Therefore, although it pains me to do so because of the respect I have for the legislative branch of government, and my decades-long record of cooperating with Congress, under the advice of my attorneys, I will invoke my right under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution to refrain from answering your questions. Thank you.

Senator Rand Paul (42:52):

We will now begin a round of questioning. Dr. Fauci, your testimony today is compelled by a lawful subpoena. As you know, it's a crime under 18 USC Section 1001 to knowingly make a material false statement to Congress with a penalty up to five years of imprisonment.

(43:12)
Understanding that you are under oath, the American people would like to understand your reasoning, your rationale for why you chose to fund the research in Wuhan. There have been intelligence agencies, the CIA, the FBI, the DOE, have all come to the conclusion that more likely than not, the virus came from the lab in Wuhan, and so we'd like to know what was the rationale? What was the discussion? What went behind the decision to fund the research in Wuhan? How did you come to the conclusion that a totalitarian country would be capable of doing this in a BSL-2 lab, a lab that lacked the security? What was the reasoning? And are you sorry basically for making the decision? Would you, given another chance, say, "Well, gosh, circumstances now as I know, maybe it wasn't a wise thing"? Can you explain to the Committee why you chose to fund this dangerous research in China?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (44:16):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

Senator Rand Paul (44:26):

In the red folder on your table is a copy of Section 192 of Title 2 of the US Code. Your counsel has been provided a copy as well. That section makes it a crime for a witness appearing under subpoena to refuse to answer any questions pertinent to the question under inquiry. Do you have that in front of you?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (44:48):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

Senator Rand Paul (44:55):

Let the record record that the witness has refused to answer whether there's a folder in front of him based on his Fifth Amendment right.

(45:05)
It is true that you're appearing under direction of our subpoena to provide testimony on matters under consideration by the Committee, including the origins of COVID-19, risky life sciences research and your tenure as a federal government employee. Additionally, you've been provided a full and unconditional pardon dated January 19th, 2025 for any offenses against the United States which may have been committed or taken part from January 1st, 2014 through the date of the pardon for a 10-year period arising from or in any manner related to your service as director of the National Institute for 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. Have you refused this pardon, or do you have any reason to believe this full and unconditional pardon, this grant of immunity, would somehow require you to plead the Fifth Amendment?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (46:09):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

Senator Rand Paul (46:17):

Based on the facts presented, I'm going to direct you to answer the questions. The Committee has issued a valid subpoena. They have requested your presence here. The questions are very pertinent to your decision making as Head of NIAID as well as as a Chief Advisor to the president. Do you still refuse to answer the questions?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (46:40):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

Senator Rand Paul (46:49):

Let's do the others. Dr. Fauci, were you ever made aware of gain- of-function research on monkeypox being conducted at the National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasure Center and back at Fort Detrick?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (47:11):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

Senator Rand Paul (47:20):

Dr. Fauci, did the CIA ever transfer funds to NIH under an inter-agency agreement?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (47:29):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

Senator Rand Paul (47:40):

I'm going to but we have a long list of [inaudible 00:47:42] questions.

(47:43)
Dr. Fauci, did the NIH ever conduct research for or in coordination with any element of the intelligence community? CIA, ODNI?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (47:57):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Rand Paul (48:05):

The reason why these questions are important is President Trump has done a ban, and we're glad that he did a ban on gain-of-function research, so we're better off than we were when we had an advocate serving as Head of NIAID, an advocate for gain-of-function research. There is still though a question though, whether or not the intelligence community is adhering to that order. There's a question of whether or not gain-of-function research is still ongoing, and these are important questions the American people deserve to know. Dr. Fauci, have you been read into any classified Department of Homeland Security program? Any prospective special access program concerning gain-of-function research?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (48:46):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

Senator Rand Paul (48:57):

When we look at the research in China, the gain-of-function research that you've denied was gain-of-function, one of the things that startled the scientists when they saw COVID in the first couple of weeks was when they looked at the sequence of it. They said, "Oh my God, there's a furin cleavage site in it." And in this particular family of coronaviruses, the sarbecoviruses, they'd never seen this before. They were also startled to look at it and see how it was coded for, what the codons were, and to discover that the codons used out of 36 different possibilities turned out to be the one that was commonly used in gene manipulation by scientists. Dr. Fauci, were the scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology capable of inserting a furin cleavage site into a coronavirus?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (49:47):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

Senator Rand Paul (49:55):

So one of the experiments that was pretty common was they would take the backbone of a SARS virus. And this would be a SARS virus that the backbone itself wasn't that dangerous, but then they would dig through guano 300 feet underground, back guano. They'd find other viruses, unknown viruses, they'd take the S protein off of an unknown virus and stick it on a backbone. And then they would affect mice that have humanized cells. And they were trying to discover if they could create a virus that infects humans.

(50:28)
Now, many people would say, "Well, gosh, that doesn't sound like a really good idea to create viruses that don't exist in nature to see if they'll infect human cells. What if one escaped? What if you keep infecting this and do serial passage? You actually adapt the virus to be infectious to humans."

(50:46)
So the question is, is whether or not Dr. Fauci, the Wuhan Institute of Virology was combining an S protein with one virus with the backbone of others. And could this lead to a virus? Maybe it wasn't even predicted, but could it lead to viruses that gained in function and then could lead to a pandemic?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (51:07):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

Senator Rand Paul (51:15):

One of the arguments that you and others have made against this virus coming from the lab is it couldn't have come from the viruses that have been published. And nobody's really arguing that. I think from the very beginning, people acknowledged that the viruses that have been published are too far evolutionarily distant from a virus that could have become COVID-19.

(51:38)
But what has never been acknowledged by the side who tries to call the other side a conspiracy theory, which is really something you don't usually see in a scientific debate. This is the first time I've ever seen an article printed in Lancet by your friends who called this a conspiracy theory. These are the kind of things you see as a screed on a political website, you don't really see this in science. But when they release this as being a conspiracy theory, we're wondering that when you do this, when you combine these viruses and are able to grow them in humanized cells, whether or not this kind of risky research, whether or not whether you call it gain-of-function or not, whether you use the definition of gain-of-function, whether this kind of research should have had more scrutiny.

(52:26)
I think in your House testimony, you testified that you never traveled to China, and that you were unaware that anybody at NIH ever examined the labs, that you trusted the Chinese scientists. I think you've said that even recently, that with your discretion, you trusted the Chinese scientists. The problem is that even in our country, we trust our scientists. They're good American scientists probably doing the right thing for America. But at the same time, we oversight to make sure it's not dangerous research, but we also investigate the lab. I believe Fort Detrick was one of our main labs was closed down in the last year or two because of a research incident that was dangerous with dangerous pathogens.

(53:09)
And so the American people would want to know, how could you approve this dangerous research in China, say that you trusted the Chinese scientists, and then in the end, you had to admit that you'd never been there and none of your inspectors had ever been there. Dr. Fauci, at any of the labs where this dangerous research occurring, were any American lab oversight or lab investigators, did they ever appear in these labs to make sure that they were safe labs?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (53:39):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Rand Paul (53:48):

So one of the main theories for those who have looked at this being created in the lab was the idea that could have come from a virus not previously published. Dr. Fauci, are you aware that Dr. Shi, who worked for the Wuhan Institute of Virology, was said to, and I think in her own words, to have over a hundred viruses that had not been previously published that could have been close enough relative to create COVID-19. Are you aware of that?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (54:16):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Rand Paul (54:25):

Under your testimony previously, when you denied ever having funded gain-of-function in China, it was so adamant as to be striking to leave no room for any interpretation of what is or isn't gain-of-function research. But there's another important question, did you fund gain-of-function research in other biolabs around the world?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (54:49):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Rand Paul (54:57):

The one research project that we do know you did fund is the one that Ron Fouchier did. It's important to talk about because this sort of was the beginning of the debate over gain-of-function. This wasn't just me, I wasn't even aware of the debate 10 years ago. This was other scientists, over 200 scientists at the Cambridge Working Group signed a protest because they didn't think you should fund the research and they didn't think it should even be published because it was sort of a roadmap as to how to make a bioweapon.

(55:24)
So what they did was the avian flu, and this is important. It may be the most important question we get to here today. The avian flu has about 50% mortality for humans. The good news though about animal viruses is they don't infect humans very well. It will infect humans, but doesn't go human to human very well. Ron Fouchier, with the money that you provided to him, did an experiment where he caused purposeful mutations to create a new virus, an avian flu that didn't just infect birds well, but actually infected mammals well, went ferret to ferret in an aerosolized manner. People saw this and were aghast at the decision making process that you decided to fund this.

(56:05)
But this is when the debate came about and you wrote in support of this in The Washington Post and you said, "Even if a scientist is bitten, even if a pandemic should occur, the knowledge is worth the risks." Do you still stand by that? Would you like to qualify at all whether or not the knowledge of gain-of-function is worth the risks? Particularly in this case, since we now know 15 million people died worldwide. Many people believe this came from the lab. Do you think that the risks really are worth the benefits for gain-of-function research?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (56:38):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Rand Paul (56:49):

All right. We're going to finish with this question. And it's based really on that statement, that general statement and your support for gain-of-function. The idea that the benefits outweigh the risks. So there are many other people who disagreed and they aren't politicians or not, I don't know what party they're in. David Relman is probably one of the most esteemed, and he is a scientist at Stanford. He, I think, has classified clearance. He's been a consultant to our government probably for a decade or more. And he's written about this publicly, he says the opposite. He said that the risks of this research do not outweigh the benefits. He said the risks we shouldn't do it. Richard Ebright, who's been involved in this debate for two decades, says the same thing, says we really shouldn't be doing this at all.

(57:40)
There's a quote also by... The Kevin Esvelt quote, is that at the very end? Kevin Esvelt, who's a CRISPR scientist at MIT, also wrote about this gain-of-function. "I implore every scientist, funder, and nation working in the field, please stop. No more trying to discover or make pandemic capable viruses. No more experiments likely to disseminate blueprints for plagues."

(58:21)
Dr. Fauci, would you like to at least answer this one question for us today and let us know whether or not you've changed your mind on whether or not the benefits of gain-of-function research outweigh the risks?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (58:34):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Rand Paul (58:45):

The Chairman has denied your assertion of privilege and directed you to answer, but you nonetheless refuse and stand on privilege despite the existence of the pardon. The Committee will have to consider after this hearing what appropriate action should be taken against you for the failure to testify after being directed to do so. It's against the law to obstruct an investigation of Congress. There will be repercussions to your refusal to testify today. Senator Peters.

(59:19)
You're not recognized, you're not recognized.

Speaker 1 (59:22):

Out of order.

Senator Rand Paul (59:23):

If you are unruly, you will be removed from the proceeding. You are not recognized. And you are not recognized, sir. Sir, you are not recognized. You are not recognized. Security? We'll hold off. But you will respect these proceedings. You were told not to sit at the table. You insist on sitting at the table, and we told you, you would not be recognized. You are not invited here for testimony, sir. You are being disruptive. Would you behave this way in a courtroom? No, because the judge would put you in jail. I can't do that today, but I can have you escorted from the premises. So I would say, sir, sit quietly and don't say another word. I said sit quietly, you are not recognized. Another word, and you're gone.

Senator Gary Peters (01:00:18):

So Mr. Chairman, I'd like to hear what the attorney has to say.

Senator Rand Paul (01:00:22):

He is not recognized by the Committee or the Chair. If he speaks again, he will be removed from the room. This testimony is from Anthony Fauci. This is not a game with his lawyers. He can advise, his lawyers can give him advice. He's got a half dozen here, they're all allowed to talk to him.

Senator Gary Peters (01:00:40):

Yes.

Senator Rand Paul (01:00:40):

All right? But the attorneys are not recognized. In fact, the attorney was told not to sit at the table, and he's not obeying that recommendation. There's a row behind you, sir. That's where you were told to sit and you're not. And now you're disrupting the proceedings. And so look, this is the way Anthony Fauci wants to be remembered, for a lawyer not listening to the rules. That's the way you want to be remembered and that's what you're going to do? You are not recognized, sir. Security, please remove him from the room. Let the record state that Dr. Fauci will still have the advice of the other half a dozen attorneys that he brought along today. Senator Peters.

Senator Gary Peters (01:01:52):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The COVID-19 pandemic is not the first or the last public health crisis to impact our nation. In December 2022, I released a report that identified significant failures in our federal government's preparedness and initial response to COVID-19. This report contained 17 key findings. It's a very large report, which I have right here. It contained 17 key findings and corresponding recommendations, including the need to invest in sustainable domestic manufacturing capabilities for critical medical supplies, build the infrastructure needed to surge testing capacity for infectious diseases, and robustly fund public health emergency preparedness and responses across all levels of government. Unfortunately, multiple administrations, including the current Trump administration, have failed to fund or to reform our health preparedness. This is something that I would hope the Committee in the future would investigate. It needs to be taken a look at.

(01:03:05)
It also feels like a new public health threat is hitting us every month. There's a foodborne parasite affecting thousands of people in Michigan and across the country, and our federal agencies still haven't fully pinned down the source of that outbreak. Measles cases in this country are at the highest they've been in 35 years. More children are getting sick and even hospitalized from this preventable disease. Over 1,000 people have died from the Ebola virus in Africa, and we don't know how widespread this crisis actually is. We have a Hantavirus scare on a cruise ship, and though it hasn't made headlines in the way that the screw worm threatening our food security has, I remain concerned about bird flu that is also spreading and could one day cause a pandemic. This is also something this Committee should be investigating and holding hearings on.

(01:04:03)
Since January 2025, the Trump administration has taken a number of actions to drastically weaken our ability to fight infectious diseases and biological threats that endanger Americans. These actions are both incomprehensible and are also inexcusable. They include slashing funding for public health and infectious disease research, canceling contracts for cutting-edge vaccine technology, shutting agencies responsible for tackling infectious diseases around the world, firing thousands of federal employees with keeping our communities and our medicines and our food supply safe, and injecting political appointees in what should be non-political grant making functions.

(01:04:46)
That is something this Committee should be looking at. I could go on. I could go on all the topics that we need to be looking at moving forward to protect this country. We're not doing that in this Committee. That's what this Committee was designed to do. It's what it has done throughout history. It has done it in a bipartisan way. We should get back to that and think about the future of this country and keeping this country safe. When a crisis like COVID-19 strikes, we have an obligation to examine what went right and what went wrong to provide accountability for the American people.

(01:05:16)
Congress certainly has done that. Between the House and Senate, nearly 20 different Committees, 20 different Committees, including this Committee, as I mentioned, have conducted oversight of the COVID-19 pandemic, conducting transcribed interviews, holding dozens of hearings, and released more than 10 reports. Today's exercise, unfortunately, is a stark departure from those largely bipartisan, legitimate efforts. The Chairman has shut the minority out of participating equally in these efforts, withheld information, selectively released documents, actions that completely undermine the credibility of this investigation. I will enter a record without objection, Mr. Chairman, a letter that I sent to you that detailed all of those areas that we have concerned with and where we were shut out.

Senator Rand Paul (01:06:02):

Without objection.

Senator Gary Peters (01:06:03):

We'll provide other-

Senator Gary Peters (01:06:00):

Areas that we have concern with and where we were shut out.

Counsel (01:06:02):

Without objection.

Senator Gary Peters (01:06:03):

We'll provide other details as well. I think today's hearing unfortunately does real damage. It's tempting to turn one person into the scapegoat for a crisis that hundreds of officials across both the Trump and the Biden administration were responsible for handling. And it does so in a way that people that are facing death threats.

(01:06:27)
This is only going to unfortunately deter other scientific experts from public service to understand that this is what they would have to go through as they provide their advice to us. We're not going to make our nation safer and I hope that we can restore by doing these kinds of activities. And I hope that we can restore our legitimate bipartisan oversight that's going to help strengthen our public health and pandemic preparedness and other homeland priorities. That's what this committee needs to focus on. It hasn't the last year and a half. Let's hope it does in the future. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman (01:07:03):

Senator Johnson.

Senator Johnson (01:07:05):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Fauci, I hope the American people listen very carefully to Chairman Paul's opening statement. I think it's a stunning indictment of the actions you've taken that have been so destructive to global health. I certainly understand why you needed a pardon. I certainly understand why, on the advice of counsel, you're not answering any questions because I think it'd be almost impossible for you to answer the questions truthfully without really demonstrating what you did, your culpability, self-incriminating.

(01:07:59)
All of us has prepared a lot. I've been deluged with questions to ask Dr. Anthony Fauci. There are so many legitimate questions that deserve answers and now you're not willing to provide those answers. So with my limited time, I'm going to talk about things that my investigation have revealed that have not been adequately answered and, quite honestly, haven't been adequately covered by the legacy media.

(01:08:32)
I'll kind of combine the questions into kind of one, but I certainly ... Let's put up the last COVID chart. I was warned pretty early on about the dangers of the experimental gene therapy that you've called a vaccine, but it really falls under the definition of gene therapy. So I was going to ask you, I mean, were you carefully monitoring the safety surveillance systems like VAERS and V-safe that literally were deluged with complaints?

(01:09:07)
Currently, worldwide, there've been almost 1.7 million adverse events reported to the VAERS system. Of those, over 39,000 were deaths. And of those deaths, 24% occur on the day of vaccination within one or two days. 24%, which by the way, just happens to be the same percentage that a Rasmussen poll pointed out. 24% of the American public believe they know somebody who died of the experimental gene therapy.

(01:09:42)
So again, I was certainly interested in asking you whether or not you were following this as carefully as I was. It's not my responsibility to follow safety surveillance systems, but I did. And by the way, when I published ... This is actual government information. When I published it and people had me on their shows, they would be censored by Facebook. They would be de-platformed, I think largely at the behest of the actions you took to make sure that disinformation wasn't spread. This wasn't disinformation. This was the truth.

(01:10:17)
So I was going to ask you whether you knew Dr. Marks. I think you do know him. He's the head of CBER. He's the man who was in charge of approving vaccines and surveilling for the safety. My investigation shows that on March 1st of 2021, less than three months after the Emergency Use Authorizations, he was warned by Dr. Ana Szarfman, data mining expert, that the algorithm they were using to analyze VAERS's data was going to hide in mask safety signals.

(01:10:45)
26 days later and three months consecutively after that, they did data runs with a new algorithm that unmasked those safety signals. They showed dozens of safety signals, including sudden cardiac death, cerebral artery occlusion, basal ganglia stroke, agonal rhythm, Bell's palsy, and pulmonary infarction.

(01:11:12)
Your diaries now show that you actually suffered pulmonary infarction in I think probably June 2021. I was just wondering whether it ever went through your mind that maybe that injection, all those boosters you took might have caused that. And the question I was going to ... And I'll ask this question. Were you ever made aware of the fact that Peter Marks was warned that the algorithm was going to hide the safety signals? And were you told that senior FDA officials were given dozens, shown dozens of safety signals associated with the COVID injection?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (01:11:55):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Johnson (01:12:03):

Next area I want to go through is in that same month of March 2021, an employee at NIH, Dr. Nath, led a team of researchers who were diagnosing and treating individuals who'd never had COVID or were severely injured by the genetic therapy injections. Dr. Nath told those individuals, "Stay quiet. We want to make sure that we gather all the information and then release it to doctors so they can treat people like yourself." There was a concerted effort, and I'll enter this into the record. It appears inside NIH to quash Dr. Nath publishing that study.

(01:12:55)
It finally was put on a pre-pinned server with telling no one in I think about May of 2022. I think what's noteworthy about this is Dr. Nath told the injured participants that early treatment, early intervention was crucial for them to be treated. And yet within the NIH, they were questioning what was Dr. Nath doing. They didn't want to publish that because, and I won't take time searching for it, because publishing it would create vaccine hesitancy. Which is what we continue to hear time and time again is the reason they didn't promote the ... They lied about the safety signals they were seeing.

(01:13:39)
Throughout the pandemic, I always pushed early treatment. We've got things in here where you were really concerned about remdesivir because it was untested, but hydroxychloroquine, it was an approved drug, maybe some safety issues, but we had a great deal of experience with it. All of a sudden, you had the Surgisphere study. Those retracted within two weeks because it was completely false. Totally blew up the use of hydroxychloroquine. And then when it comes to ivermectin, which by the way, because I was contacted by so many people, I referred them to doctors that actually had the courage and compassion to treat vaccine injured individuals. It works.

(01:14:25)
But I was going to ask you whether you were involved in the FDA attack on ivermectin. You had a interview on CNN on August 29th of 2021 where, again, I just don't want to take time to find the exact quote, but you said there's no evidence. There's no evidence that ivermectin is helpful on that exact same day. And I've got the studies right here. There was a website that was tracking the random controlled studies. Here they are showing 60%, 70% efficacy of ivermectin. The same day and you say there's no evidence, there was all kinds of evidence.

(01:15:18)
Loved ones had to go to ... Hospitals had to sue hospitals. Just would you try it? So I would want to know to what extent were you involved in sabotaging hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin. And did you do that because you knew the only way you get an Emergency Use Authorization for these drugs, these experimental gene therapy, was if there was no effective treatment, you couldn't get the Emergency Use Authorization? So is that why you helped sabotage these cheap generic drugs in favor of remdesivir? Which by the way, nurses ... Are you aware of the fact that nurses called it "run, death is near"?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (01:16:03):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Johnson (01:16:10):

Let me end on this note because this just came to light. We've got 11 million pages of documents. We also have other people who are in the room. But now, you actually lied to your own diary.

(01:16:28)
On March 27th, 2020, you wrote in your diary, "To my surprise yesterday, the POTUS sent a letter to governors outlining a plan to reopen county by county while monitoring the spread of virus in the low risk counties. This was half-baked and never shown to Deb or I before it was sent out." So we have evidence that, in fact, you were fully aware of it and certainly approved if not authored it. So I was simply asking, is that true? I mean, did you literally lie to your own diary? Did you know of that letter sent out to governors about reopening county by county? And again, Mr. Chairman, I'd ask you to ask the witness to just answer that one simple question.

Dr. Anthony Fauci (01:17:13):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Johnson (01:17:21):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman (01:17:22):

Senator Hassan.

Senator Hassan (01:17:25):

Thank you. Dr. Fauci, I want to start by thanking you for more than 50 years of service to this country at the National Institutes of Health. And it is unfortunate that you have been put in the position that you are in today. And it must be enormously frustrating to know that this hearing is designed to entrap you. It must be very frustrating for your attorneys to hear the chair's mischaracterization of the legal issues and posture that impact your decisions at the witness table today. Meanwhile, I was going to ask you a series of questions about things that are relevant right now to the people of the United States about the state of public health in this country. Since President Trump took office in 2025, more than 4,500 cases of measles have been reported. That is more cases in the year and a half since Donald Trump has been president than were reported from 2000 to 2024 combined.

(01:18:41)
Children are dying because there has been increased vaccine hesitancy fueled by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and frankly his entire administration. Thousands of people in the United States of America have been sickened by a foodborne parasite, and the outbreak is nowhere near under control as staffing at the FDA and other critical public health entities has been slashed by Russell Vought and Elon Musk.

(01:19:20)
Last year, the National Institutes of Health awarded 200 ... I think it's 201 fewer grants compared to the previous years. 207, I am corrected, compared to previous years. As those grants were either canceled or delays, especially at the beginning of the Trump administration, I can tell you, I can tell my colleagues what the impact was on people in New Hampshire, on scientists in New Hampshire, on clinical trials in New Hampshire where people's cancer treatment was interrupted because Elon Musk and Russell Vought no better, they say, than the people at NIH about what to fund.

(01:20:05)
And because they did some sort of word search, it seems for some of the grants. And boy, oh boy, if you were studying rural health in New Hampshire and trying to understand how to better engage people who need healthcare in rural America, that was off the table.

(01:20:27)
America is losing researchers and scientists to other countries because researchers and scientists, highly trained, highly qualified, invested in often by the American taxpayer are finding the hostility from this administration so strong that it interferes with their science and they want to pursue science wherever that science takes them.

(01:20:59)
I also sit on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. We have had a number of hearings with nominees recently to fill critical spots. One of those nominees is Dr. Erica Schwartz, a brilliant woman, medical degree, biomedical engineering degree. I think she also told us she has a law degree and a master's in public health. She was a two-star admiral in the United States Navy, an experienced doctor. And yet, when I asked her if she would push back at Secretary Kennedy if he instructed her to suspend the promotion of the flu vaccine as he did some point in the last few months, there's an email to prove it.

(01:21:58)
She couldn't answer that question. She either could not, would not, or had been bullied into evading a question about whether she, as the director of CDC, would stand up to Secretary Kennedy, the most unqualified Secretary of Health and Human Services this country has ever seen. And more than unqualified, somebody who pursues conspiracy theories, degrades people with disabilities and continues to promote disproved science.

(01:22:38)
That's the state of healthcare and public health in this country right now, not to mention the trillion dollars or so of cuts to the Medicaid program that is decimating healthcare in my state and decimating it around the country. Not to mention the refusal of my colleagues and this administration to extend critical tax cuts for people who are trying to afford insurance on the Affordable Care Act.

(01:23:06)
I just was at one of my community health clinics and they are reporting fewer and fewer people coming in for care, disrupting care because they can no longer afford health insurance. And that is impacting, of course, the revenue stream to the community health clinic, their ability to hire and pay people, their ability to take care of their community. That's what I wish we were having hearings about in this committee and in the help committee. That's what I wish we were trying to address in a bipartisan way. But instead, we are here in an attempt to entrap you because you had a distinguished career trying to put Americans public health first. With that, I yield.

Mr. Chairman (01:24:02):

Senator Lankford.

Senator Lankford (01:24:05):

Mr. Chairman, thank you. Dr. Fauci, thanks for coming today. I know you're invoking your Fifth Amendment right, which you have the right to be able to do constitutionally, but thanks for coming and be a part of this. There are a lot of issues and a lot of questions that have come up and hopefully in some day in the future, we'll be able to get all this clarity to be able to pull together. There were over a million Americans that died from COVID. You know that well. You were tracking the numbers literally every single day. Those affected and those that died from the earliest days.

(01:24:38)
There are a lot of lessons that we've got to learn from this that we should put into history to be able to determine what happens in the future, how do we respond in the future, how do we deal with something like this again. It was uncharted territory for everyone. But I would tell you, countless families, including my own, watched a loved one die behind glass or through a screen because we couldn't get access to them. Children couldn't get to school. People missed their prom or graduation ceremonies. There are lots of things that happened that dramatically changed the future of the country.

(01:25:15)
The mental health issues that we have continued to deal with from the isolation have been profound. Even something as simple as children that wore masks or around adults wearing masks for all that time are slower in learning language now because they couldn't watch someone's lips moving, and so they're slower in that.

(01:25:33)
Amazingly enough, churches and places of worship were forced to be closed down. There were even churches that met where the pastor preached in the parking lot and the congregants all met in their cars with windows up and police came and scattered them and said, "You can't be here." The simple act of social distancing became an issue. As everyone guessed, what's the right distance to be away from someone else. Literacy rates have declined. All these things are results, not to mention the loss of lives and the health experiences that have been out there for many Americans. So there are legitimate questions.

(01:26:11)
I wanted to be able to raise some of those to be able to walk through some of this because it has been very, very challenging. As we've gone through some of your notes and your diary and other things that are out there, we're trying to be able to pull bits and pieces of things to be able to learn lessons.

(01:26:26)
On May the 6th, 2020, you wrote at that time, "I had a conversation with Robert Redfield," as you know well, was then the director of CDC, "about the fact that greater than one million children worldwide have missed their measles vaccination because of the shutdown." You stated, "This is terrible and needs to be addressed since on that basis alone, there will be far, far more excess deaths from measles among children than coronavirus deaths among children. I need to bring this up to the TF," the task force.

(01:27:04)
Did you ever have an opportunity to bring up the potential of measles deaths among children and infection rate going around the world from measles based on the fact that so many children would not get their measles vaccine because of the shutdown?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (01:27:19):

I'm sorry, Senator, but on the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Lankford (01:27:28):

That is your right to do. One of the big issues that's really coming up is on the lab issue. This was greatly discussed about whether this came from a lab or whether this came from nature. There are obvious issues and differences between the two to be able to know this. You had a lot of conversation on this. Scientists around the world were in conversation on this.

(01:27:50)
There were different statements that you even made in your private notes and your public notes on it. In January the 26th of 2020, this is before we had even our first tragic death of coronavirus in the United States. You wrote, "It now appears using a big data that the genomic data of the first infection was in early December and was not connected to the market," which was the big rumor that was out there as this wet market in China. "We know the market was not the source. It was the amplifier."

(01:28:18)
On January the 31st, you wrote about a phone call. You wrote, "The people on the phone felt the mutations around the furin cleavage side of the spike protein could not have occurred naturally since it would require an evolutionary jump that they found nowhere in bat isolates. They bring up the possibility this could have been deliberately inserted and either accidentally released or deliberately released by a crazy person in the lab, the former being the most likely."

(01:28:45)
February the 1st, same year, 2020. This is again, still before our first death. "There was not total agreement about the likelihood of deliberate insertion. Ron said he was sure that this could occur naturally and we should not waste our time and divert our effort to pursue this. This is expected of him since he was the original gain of function person with Yoshi. Also, Christian was withdrawn. The rest felt deliberate insertion was possible. And given the fact that Dr. Jianling Xie at the University of Wuhan has been working for years and gain a function in coronaviruses to allow adaptation of the spike protein to bind to the human ACE2 receptor, we could not let this go."

(01:29:27)
That's a remarkable statement for February the 1st of 2020 when there hadn't even been the first death here, but we knew something was moving. You knew well that something was moving. You identified February the 1st before any of us had ever heard of the Wuhan Lab, not only the Wuhan Lab in the conversation, but literally the scientist that you named in your own notes, the lead scientist that was there. It's interesting to me on that. And the questions I was going to ask you was just your background and knowledge about the Wuhan Lab and Dr. Xie and all the details.

(01:30:02)
I'm aware of where you have been on trying to be able to plead your Fifth Amendment right, which is your right to be able to do, but I also want to be able to find out some facts to be able to help us for the future on this.

(01:30:12)
The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in May of 2020 put out a classified document that has only been recently unclassified on this, that had this statement, "We assess all the necessary conditions for an accidental release of a laboratory modified coronavirus. Specifically a coronavirus adapted to recognized human cell receptors were present at the Chinese Wuhan Institute of Virology in mid to late 2019."

(01:30:39)
Now, the question that I had for you is this is May the 27th of 2020. This is the report that most people will see is this. I have clearance. I serve on the intelligence committee. I've actually read this complete document unredacted. My concern is, were you given the ability to see this document unredacted based on your position? Were you able to see this and to be able to get this information? I could. I could see it. And I know what's here. Everybody else just has their conclusion at the beginning of it, not this.

(01:31:14)
My question to you was going to be, did you have access? Because it's important for the future that people in your position do have access to this kind of information and insight. Is there any way you could answer that question? Were you able to give access to this data?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (01:31:30):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Lankford (01:31:40):

You wrote on January the 26th of 2020, "We should be allowed to send our CDC epidemiologists to China to work with them so they could see the data firsthand." You also wrote in February 12th, 2020, that you had great concerns about the World Health Organization because they depends greatly on China. And as you stated, often bows to them.

(01:32:06)
Now, this is a really important issue that we've got to resolve for the future. It's not just our cooperation with Chinese scientists. It's our acknowledgement that China covered up their data, wouldn't allow our scientists to be able to come in. They cleaned up the wet market. They cleaned up the other areas. They wouldn't allow you to get access to all the other scientists there, including their health records, what happened to them, or even all the sequencing that they had done in advance.

(01:32:37)
For the future of our research and our cooperation with any scientists around the world, I think it's really important that we resolve, if we're going to fund research and cooperate with you, we've got to have certain things from you. If things go sideways, we've got to have access to all information in all places.

(01:32:55)
You were noting not only that China was affecting the World Health Organization and that China was bending them to their will. And so the World Health Organization was putting out data that you saw, at least at that point, as being from a Chinese perspective, covering up what was going on. But you also noted we weren't able to get access to all this information.

(01:33:15)
We've got to be able to figure this out for the future to be able to make sure that research that is done, we have access to all information. If something goes sideways at some point, which clearly it did at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. And that being as was noted by many people, the only lab in the world that was doing research like this, that had a lower standard of actually their security standards there than many other labs around the world, yet they were doing this very dangerous research.

(01:33:42)
What can we gain? And what advice could you give us to say in a future setting, we've got to make sure that we actually get information from people and we can be guaranteed that we're going to get that insight? Yes, sir.

Dr. Anthony Fauci (01:33:58):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Lankford (01:34:04):

I yield back.

Mr. Chairman (01:34:08):

Senator Blumenthal.

Dr. Anthony Fauci (01:34:10):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to go back to the dark days of the coronavirus pandemic, one of the darkest days or times in our history. Hospitals were overflowing. Navy medical ships were docked in the Hudson River. Emergency rooms were forced into unprecedented triaging.

(01:34:37)
During the worst week of the pandemic, which happens to have been the last week of President Trump's first term, more than 25,000 Americans died of COVID-19. Easy to forget those dark days. But for the past 18 months, the Trump administration has been engaged in a campaign to rewrite this history. And today's proceeding, I fear, is part of that effort. One of the darkest days in our Senate's history.

(01:35:11)
The Trump administration has launched a baseless set of smears against vaccines that help pull us out of that public health crisis, vaccines that are undoubtedly President Trump's greatest accomplishment. It has slashed funding to local public health departments that were on the front lines of the pandemic. And those healthcare workers are heroes. It has disparaged those heroes as woke or wasteful. And it has used a politicized Department of Justice to target the researchers who helped us track and understand the novel virus. Today's hearing is another page in that playbook, sadly, tragically.

(01:36:04)
Dr. Fauci, you've spent five decades in public service, including nearly four decades in leadership at the National Institutes of Health, helping to conquer COVID-19, but also HIV, swine flu, Zika, Ebola, and other epidemics with real life results saving human lives. Put aside all the flowery rhetoric that we hear in the United States Senate. Dr. Fauci has saved lives, as have public health officials in the United States and throughout the world. And today, we are demeaning and degrading their lifesaving service.

(01:36:55)
Republicans are eager to rebrand you as a villain in order to distract from their own failure to protect Americans from soaring healthcare costs. They've been rising astronomically in the last couple of years. And from unsafe food, which has caused cyclospora to spread, and resurgent measles as a result of the anti-vaccine policy.

(01:37:27)
This hearing is the culmination of a years- long crusade, which started more than six years ago when Dr. Fauci dared to contradict President Trump. The campaign to vilify you, Dr. Fauci, is just one part of this larger campaign against science and facts, a campaign that has made Americans less safe. It is shameful that in a country like ours, a dedicated public service like Dr. Fauci, has experienced persistent threats to his life since the pandemic because of the lies that are told about him.

(01:38:09)
His attorney has been gagged, thrown out of this hearing room, but he has written a letter to the chairman that is an explanation for the reasons why Dr. Fauci is in fact invoking his constitutional right. It is a right. And I would ask that this letter from David Schertler and Danny Onorato be made part of the record if there's no objection.

Counsel (01:38:41):

Without objection.

Dr. Anthony Fauci (01:38:44):

His attorney has also issued a statement within the last half hour, I believe, that sets forth, again, the reasons that he is here to help protect his client's rights. And I would ask that that statement be made part of the record as well, Mr. Chairman.

Counsel (01:39:03):

Without objection.

Dr. Anthony Fauci (01:39:00):

Let that statement be made part of the record as well, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Rand Paul (01:39:03):

Without objection.

Dr. Anthony Fauci (01:39:05):

Let's be very clear. The Fifth Amendment is a right of everyone appearing before an authority like this one. It should be respected. And the reason that Dr. Fauci has invoked it in the words of his attorney, quote, "During and after the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci appeared at least a dozen times for Congressional hearings in the Senate alone and answered questions about the very issues on which you purport to seek information. He has been thoroughly transparent and consistent in providing factual information to Congress, and he is deeply familiar with the processes and protocols of sharing information with the legislative branch."

(01:40:04)
And then referring to the Chairman, "This years-long public crusade against Dr. Fauci makes one thing clear. This is not a serious effort to seek information from Dr. Fauci in a transcribed interview for a valid legislative purpose. You are single-mindedly fixated on seeing Dr. Fauci prosecuted for imaginary crimes, and you are so invested in that outcome that you have created a personal brand around it." Those are the words of his attorney.

(01:40:40)
And he cites as well the statements of the Chairman, which indicate a clear intent that the result of this proceeding be a prosecution. Quote, " The power of some of us must be used for good, like putting Fauci in jail." That's from December 23, 2025. "I want to give him a subpoena and a jail cell." Also from December of 2025. The first was 2024. Those kinds of statements by the chairman of a committee in tweets certainly provide a well-founded fear that the proceeding underway is simply an effort to trap Dr. Fauci in some kind of criminal wrongdoing.

(01:41:41)
That is not the purpose of a congressional hearing, not the valid purpose of a congressional hearing. During some of the dark days in this body under Senator Joe McCarthy, it became standard operating procedure to seek that kind of prosecutorial objective. We should not be part of a rerun of that kind of effort. This attempt to rebrand one of the most challenging times in our nation's history is a shortsighted act of desperation that will leave us less prepared for the next pandemic. It is an insult to the memory of more than one million Americans who died from COVID-19. If there are valid scientific questions about the origins of this pandemic, COVID-19, about the kinds of steps that were taken to counter it, about the need for more preparation, they should certainly be addressed, but not in a show trial. Not as part of a continuing vendetta against a single individual. And unfortunately, I fear that is what we are seeing today. America deserves better.

(01:43:13)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Rand Paul (01:43:16):

In no courtroom in America can you have your witness plead the Fifth Amendment, then your attorney gets to testify. That's what that letter is. The attorney's complaining and testifying saying, "He didn't do it. The prosecution's unfair." You don't get to do that. That's one thing you give up when you take the Fifth Amendment, you say, "I'm not going to testify. I'm not going to give you any information." You don't then get to put your lawyer forward to justify it. He can do it in the press, but you can't come and testify. He was not invited to testify and he was out of order and it was appropriate to have him ejected.

(01:43:47)
[inaudible 01:43:51]

Senator Rick Scott (01:43:51):

Chairman Paul, thank you for doing this. I think, I know in my state, people have been asking questions about Dr. Fauci for years.

(01:43:59)
So Dr. Fauci, your entries made clear that you love being a hero, a celebrity, and having the eyes of the world upon you. You loved every newspaper profile, every photo shoot, every fancy dinner with the elites. To many Americans who lost family members, who lost trust in our federal government, you're not a hero. Unfortunately, you're a villain. You made yourself the story and abandoned the American people to serve your own ego.

(01:44:25)
To begin, I'd like to talk about your relationship with David Morens. He was the senior advisor in the NIAID, Office of the Director, your office for 16 years. He was your friend. He was a frequent guest at your house. You reportedly co-authored over 50 scientific articles with him. You turned to him first right after COVID-19 first occurred. Earlier this year, the Department of Justice charged him with conspiracy against the United States, in addition to other charges as part of a conspiracy to conceal information and falsify records to suppress alternative theories about the origins of COVID-19. Now, you've publicly kicked this man to the curb saying, "Dr. Morens was not an advisor to me on Institute policy or other substantive issues." So let's start with the use of personal Gmail accounts and Dave Morens' relationship with Peter Daszak.

(01:45:19)
Dave Morens tells Peter Daszak, President EcoHealth Alliance, and you've got this in front of you, it's exhibit one. It's already in the record as part of this. It says, quote, "PS, I forgot to say that there is no worry about FOIA. I can either send stuff to Tony on his private Gmail or hand it to him at work or at his house. He is too smart to let colleagues send him stuff that could cause trouble." Dr. Fauci, did Dr. Moran's relationship with Peter Daszak concern you, yes or no?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (01:45:53):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Rick Scott (01:46:00):

Did Dave Morens ever bring documents to your house?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (01:46:04):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Rick Scott (01:46:11):

Did you ever receive a text about your work at NIAID to your personal cell phone?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (01:46:17):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Rick Scott (01:46:25):

Did any texts about your work at NID that went to your personal cell phone ever become part of the federal records?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (01:46:32):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Rick Scott (01:46:39):

Did you maintain a personal email account while serving as director?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (01:46:44):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Rick Scott (01:46:50):

Did you ever receive work-related communications on that Gmail account from David Morens?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (01:46:56):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Rick Scott (01:47:03):

Did you preserve any work-related communications on that Gmail account from David Morens?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (01:47:09):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Rick Scott (01:47:15):

Did David Morens ever provide you with documents outside of those two ways that would violate NIH policy for FOIA compliance?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (01:47:23):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Rick Scott (01:47:32):

Now let's look at two other communications. You emailed Dave Morens on January 26th, 2020. Quote, "It is important that I speak with you tonight. Please call me at home." This is part of exhibit two that you have in front of you. This email is sent the same day, the exact same day you write in an internal document, quote, "Now we know the market was not the source. It was the amplifier," unquote. Would you call the origins of COVID-19 a substantive issue?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (01:48:03):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Rick Scott (01:48:10):

Did you discuss COVID-19 origins with David Morens on this phone call?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (01:48:17):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Rick Scott (01:48:25):

Now let's take a closer look at the last time you testified before Congress. This is part of what you have in front of you as exhibit four, which is part of the record. In June 2024, you testified to Dr. Morens, quote, "Was not an advisor to me on Institute policy or other substantive issues. Furthermore, his office is located in a different building from that of the NIAID director," unquote. Is that still your testimony today?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (01:48:51):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Rick Scott (01:48:58):

So today under oath, your testimony remains that Dr. Morens was not an advisor to you on Institute policy or substantive matters.

Dr. Anthony Fauci (01:49:06):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Rick Scott (01:49:13):

Now I've got exhibit five, which you have in front of you. On October 24, 2021, David Morens texted you to provide information about an advocate for the controversial EcoHealth Alliance grant. You thank him and tell him that you will check the information. Would you agree that this shows an advisory relationship between David Morens and yourself?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (01:49:33):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Rick Scott (01:49:41):

Do you agree that you two are discussing a substantive issue?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (01:49:46):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Rick Scott (01:49:53):

If documentary evidence establishes that Dr. Morens advised you regarding EcoHealth Alliance, COVID origins, or grant policy, then your June 2024 testimony would have been inaccurate, correct?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (01:50:04):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Rick Scott (01:50:10):

Is there any document in your possession today that would contradict your prior Congressional testimony?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (01:50:16):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Rick Scott (01:50:23):

Have you deleted, destroyed, or instructed anyone to destroy records after learning Congress was investigating these matters?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (01:50:30):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Rick Scott (01:50:36):

Are you aware of anyone who did?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (01:50:40):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Rick Scott (01:50:47):

As you know, Dr. Morens now faces charges related to destroying records while you distance yourself from him. Is that fair to a decades long friend?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (01:50:56):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Rick Scott (01:51:03):

When is the last time you spoke to him?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (01:51:06):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Rick Scott (01:51:14):

In hindsight, are you disappointed how you handled COVID? Do you have any regrets?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (01:51:19):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Rick Scott (01:51:26):

Dr. Fauci, I want to close with this. Here's how you impacted my family and people close to me. I have daughters with children. You can't imagine the questions they had around vaccines for their kids and themselves and the pressure, the unbelievable pressure to make the right decision for their health. I can tell you pregnant women who worked with me were so scared because every time they went to the doctor, they were told something different about taking the vaccine. And you caused this. Imagine being a mom trying to protect their kids or an expectant mother trying to figure out what to do. Every three weeks, a doctor tells you a new set of guidance on a vaccine. The haphazard information you released and pushed on the American people with little research is appalling and why there's so much distrust in our institutions today. That trust is crucial to public health and you more than any person or event in my lifetime have destroyed that trust for millions of Americans.

(01:52:20)
You lied to hundreds of millions of people amid the worst public health crisis in a century. You failed to follow your own guidance. You forced people to watch their loved ones die alone over the phone. It's disgusting. You destroyed the federal government's credibility when it comes to public health. We have entire generations of Americans who rightfully so do not trust our institution to keep people safe because of you. This has destroyed decades of progress and lifetimes at work because you wanted to fuel your own ego and be the center of attention.

(01:52:50)
What would you do differently knowing what you know today, Dr. Fauci?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (01:52:55):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Rick Scott (01:53:02):

All the evidence is right here and you still can't bring yourself to tell the truth or apologize because you received an auto pen pardon from a staffer in the Biden White House. If we have another pandemic tomorrow, millions could die because of what you did, what you did to make Americans lose trust in their government when it comes to medicine and healthcare. How many families have you apologized to who had to watch their loved ones die alone? You breached public trust and now you're hiding behind a fraudulent pardon. Your legacy will not be as a man that saved America from COVID, but as a man who destroyed the public trust in America's public health institutions in exchange for five minutes of fame. This is how history will remember you. I yield back.

Senator Rand Paul (01:53:41):

Senator Kim.

Senator Andy Kim (01:53:49):

Thank you Dr. Fauci for coming on out in front of this committee. I know it's not what you would want. It's not what you deserve. I just want to say and start by just saying thank you to you for your service to this nation. I didn't know much about you prior to the pandemic. I came to learn about you from how many Americans did, but I also had the opportunity to talk to you and engage with you as someone who was a member of the select committee on the coronavirus crisis over in the House of Representatives. When I learned about your background, 38 years as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, appointed by President Reagan, served under seven presidents, four Republicans and three Democrats. I admire that greatly.

(01:54:48)
I myself had a chance to serve in the executive branch, serve in government under both a Republican president and a Democratic president. And I believe that we need more of that, more of that type of work. A place where we can understand our jobs, not as coming from a place of partisanship and politics, but that of just public service. And right now I feel the hyper-partisanship growing in this country in dangerous ways. I feel it much more present here on the Hill than I did back when I served as a nonpartisan career public servant at the State Department. And I worry about it. I worry about what kind of trajectory we're on as a country and what this causes when it comes next for public service and those willing to step up for our nation. And it's not just in the attacks, but we see it brought out with the cuts to funding, to the firing of federal workers, to the demonization of their motivations. People calling our public servants criminals, thinking that they are there solely to undermine others that are trying to engage.

(01:56:07)
I look at it right now. It's not just that the people are being attacked, our public servants being attacked, but that it's undermining the very nature of the work of governance. These cuts to HHS funding, to NIH funding, to the grants, cuts to the researchers doing the critical work to find cures and medicines. These firing and these cuts, they're creating a chilling effect. Honestly, a chilling effect for the next generation of people who might consider stepping up to serve our nation, to be the next generation of researchers who now are wondering whether or not this is the right thing for them to do at a time when they see some of their colleagues or those that they looked up to being attacked, their funding being cut. Researchers that I talk to who are now either leaving the country or considering leaving the country to do their work because of the sheer unpredictability of America, that this nation so great, so powerful has now been crippled with this sense of unpredictability and unreliability. That is not the type of country that I hope we strive to be.

(01:57:24)
I've raised this because these attacks upon Dr. Fauci, it's not just about him. It's sending signals to others. Others who are thinking about serving our country, our scientists, our doctors, our healthcare professionals, our researchers, trying to show to them that if you don't get in line with the politics, that you will also potentially be subject to attacks.

(01:57:51)
And from the work that he has done from HIV/AIDS to Ebola to COVID, we've seen him try to engage in these crises. They're not easy, especially when it's a novel disease when you don't know what comes next. A lot of unknowns, having to make decisions without the full breadth of knowledge we always wish we had in hindsight, but there is nothing perfect, no perfect clarity when it comes to pandemics, when it comes to crises. I worked in national security and wars and crises. I made judgment calls, gave my best advice to generals, to ambassadors, even to a president. Did I get it all right? No. Did I do my best? I did everything I thought I could with the information that I had.

(01:58:38)
The public servants, they do this work because they love this country and they strive to improve it. It's not an easy job, but it is because there is so much at stake in our country. But these public servants do it because they are in the arena. I just want to end by just reading a portion of this because I think it's important as we're thinking about how to be able to treat public servants to this country to think through this. And in the words of Teddy Roosevelt saying, "It's not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strive valiantly, who errors becomes short again and again, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumphs of high achievement. And who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

(01:59:50)
Thank you for your service, Dr. Fauci. I yield back.

Senator Rand Paul (01:59:53):

Senator Hawley.

Senator Josh Hawley (01:59:54):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, nothing says honesty like taking the Fifth, huh, Doc? Let's try something. What day of the week is it today?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (02:00:08):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Josh Hawley (02:00:14):

What color tie are you wearing?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (02:00:18):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Josh Hawley (02:00:24):

What color is the carpet in front of you?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (02:00:30):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Josh Hawley (02:00:36):

Let's just get one thing straight. You don't have any rights under the Fifth Amendment because you've been pardoned. As you very well know, as the Supreme Court has been clear for a century and more, Brown versus Walker, 1896, "When he has been pardoned, he may not stand upon his privilege." You know that. Your lawyers sitting behind you now shifting nervously in their chairs, they know it. This isn't about the Constitution. This isn't about the law. This about contempt. Contempt for this body and contempt for the American people. But I think I know why you're doing it. It's because you don't want to answer questions. It's because you did all kinds of terrible things. It's because during the pandemic, you got rich, didn't you? You got rich while people were dying, hundreds of thousands of Americans, over a million in the end, and you were getting rich. And not only were you doing that, you were using federal employees with taxpayer money to apply for and solicit cash prizes for you personally. Cash prizes totaling over a million dollars. You did all of that during the pandemic, didn't you? That's a question.

Dr. Anthony Fauci (02:01:44):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Josh Hawley (02:01:50):

You remember Greg Folkers? Who was that?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (02:01:54):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Josh Hawley (02:02:00):

Your chief of staff is the answer. Do you remember Patricia Conrad? Who was that?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (02:02:06):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Josh Hawley (02:02:12):

She was your personal assistant. And what were these individuals doing in the depth of the pandemic in November of 2020 when millions of Americans were suffering from COVID? What were they doing? I tell you what they're doing. Folkers was, on your behalf, soliciting and gathering information for a cash award. Let's look at it. We've got his email right here, right over my shoulder. Folkers says, "I'm working on this nomination for the Dan David Award for Fauci. We need to beef up the COVID part. Do you have language in the can that you can share that delineates how we responded in new ways to COVID?" He sends this to multiple federal employees. What was the Dan David Award? Do you remember, Doc?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (02:02:54):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Josh Hawley (02:03:00):

It was a $900,000 cash award. $900,000 cash award. And he got it because he used federal employees to get it. And this wasn't the only award, was it, Dr. Fauci? In fact, you applied for and received at least eight other federal cash prizes on federal time using federal employees and federal resources. Here they are over my shoulder. Besides the Dan David Award, you've got the Partnership for Public Service, you've got the Adelson Prize, you've got the Smithsonian Award, you've got the National Academy of Medicines Award, you've got the CDC Foundation. In fact, you turned your staff into a full-time application machine. You actually wrote to people and said, "Do you think maybe I'd qualify?" And you got cash for all of this. And it wasn't just one or two employees, was it? In fact, you used eight separate federal employees on federal time using federal resources to solicit cash awards. Isn't that true?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (02:04:02):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Josh Hawley (02:04:08):

Here they are right over my shoulder. Here's all of them. The people that you used, federal employees, so that you could go and get cash money. And the most hilarious part is that you weren't content to even dragoon them into applying for all of these cash awards. You then had them go out to the ethics agencies and ethics watchdogs and demand that you be able to get the money. That's right. We've got it in your emails. Your staff and employees on federal time using federal resources being paid with federal dollars are soliciting cash for you. And then they're turning around and saying to the agency, "We don't want just an answer, we want to get to yes because Fauci wants the money. He wants it. We want to get to yes and yes takes time." This is your chief of staff again, using federal email to pressure the agency's own ethics people so that you could get money, so that you could get rich. And it violated the law, didn't it, Dr. Fauci? Didn't it? It violated the law, didn't it?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (02:05:16):

Is that a question?

Senator Josh Hawley (02:05:19):

It is a question. You can answer, go ahead.

Dr. Anthony Fauci (02:05:21):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Josh Hawley (02:05:27):

Federal law, as you very well know, prohibits the solicitation of cash awards or other personal benefits for federal employees and it certainly prohibits using your own employees to do this. 5CFR section 2635205B, it says it right there in black and white. "You cannot use federal resources, federal dollars, federal employees, federal offices, federal email, federal time to solicit cash awards." And you did all of it. And the worst part is thousands of people were dying while you were doing it. You were supposed to be the nation's doctor and you were playing one on TV, but this is what you were doing with your time. Isn't that true?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (02:06:14):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Josh Hawley (02:06:21):

Yeah. Yeah, I can see why. I can certainly see why. You know what I can't quite figure out is why you were so obsessed with it, because you're already rich. I mean, and your scheme worked here. I mean, your net worth now is north of $12 million. You got over a million dollars in cash awards during COVID, during a 12 month, 24 month span during COVID. A million bucks you knocked down in cash money using federal resources. Now you're worth more than $12 million. You've got a pension that in its first year paid out north of $400,000 a year. A million people dead, you're getting rich. A million people dead, you're using federal employees to get cash awards for you. A million people dead and you're here taking the Fifth because you don't want to admit that what really happened in all that time was a multi-month, multi-year course of self-dealing. Isn't that true, Dr. Fauci?

Dr. Anthony Fauci (02:07:21):

On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Senator Josh Hawley (02:07:28):

Yeah, well silence is admission. And here's the real thing. At the end of the day, it wasn't just about the money, really, was it? It was really about a power trip. I mean, through all of this, you want to be the most famous scientist in the world. You were so focused on getting every award and every drop of cash that you could, all because you wanted to be on TV. You wanted to be the sun god of science. You wanted to be the guy who was in charge of it all. You wanted to lambast Trump. You wanted to make sure that nobody else stole your spotlight. You wanted to be the guy. You had time to sit for InStyle Magazine. Here's what you were doing with your time. You could sit for InStyle Magazine, but you can't answer questions for the American people. You could sit for InStyle Magazine, but you're here taking the Fifth. You could sit for InStyle Magazine and get a million bucks in cash awards, but now the cat's got your tongue. I bet he does.

(02:08:24)
I tell you what, here's my conclusion from all of this. This was really all about you the whole time. Somewhere along the way, you lost your way. You may have been a good public servant at one time. I don't know. But I can tell you from reading your emails now, from looking at what you did, how you used your employees, somewhere along the line, it became all about you. You

‍