Fauci
Senate Committee Holds Fauci in Contempt After He Invokes the Fifth More Than 100 Times
A Senate committee voted along party lines Thursday to hold Dr. Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress, after the former NIAID director refused to answer lawmakers’ questions about the government’s handling of COVID-19 and the pandemic’s origins at a hearing just one week earlier — a defiant stance that even members of his own legal team acknowledged put him on shaky procedural ground. What Happened at the Hearing Fauci, who once led the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, appeared before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on July 29, where he invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination more than 100 times rather than respond to lawmakers’ questions. Republicans on the committee noted what they characterized as a contradiction: Fauci delivered opening testimony addressing the pandemic response, then declined to answer virtually any follow-up questions on the same subject matter. The Contempt Vote The committee voted 8-5 along party lines Thursday to advance the contempt resolution. Chairman Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., framed the vote narrowly, insisting it wasn’t about relitigating Fauci’s pandemic-era policy decisions but purely about whether a witness can defy a direct order to answer questions without consequence. “We are voting on whether a witness who has received the benefit of a sweeping federal pardon can be ordered by this committee to answer questions and then defy that order without consequence,” Paul said ahead of the vote. That pardon reference is central to Republicans’ argument. Fauci received a broad federal pardon in early 2025, and Paul and other committee Republicans argue that a pardon covering past conduct shouldn’t shield him from having to testify about that same conduct now — nor should it protect him from consequences for any false statements made during current testimony, since a pardon can’t retroactively cover perjury committed after the fact. Democrats Push Back, Question the Point Democrats on the committee, led by Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., attempted to table the contempt vote before it proceeded, arguing the whole exercise was symbolic and wouldn’t actually accomplish anything. “This resolution will not provide the committee with any additional information, or compel Dr. Fauci to provide answers to our inquiries,” Peters said. “Criminal contempt is punitive; it does not compel a witness to answer questions or produce the documents we’d all like to see.” Paul rejected the tabling motion, telling Democrats their effort to delay the vote was “intended to avoid accountability.” Fauci’s legal counsel, David Schertler, was similarly dismissive of the proceeding, calling Thursday’s vote “a crude political stunt.” What Happens Next Under normal procedure, a contempt resolution that clears committee would move to a vote on the full Senate floor, where it would need 60 votes to pass — a threshold this measure is highly unlikely to clear given the chamber’s makeup. Rather than send it there and watch it fail, Paul said he intends to refer the matter directly to the Department of Justice, leaving it up to federal prosecutors to decide whether to pursue the case. If prosecutors move forward, the matter would go to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeanine Pirro, who could ultimately bring it before a grand jury. The Bigger Picture The vote is the latest chapter in a yearslong effort by congressional Republicans to hold Fauci accountable for decisions made during the COVID-19 pandemic, including gain-of-function research funding, mask and vaccine guidance, and the broader federal response that many conservatives argue caused lasting economic and social damage disproportionate to the actual threat. Supporters of the committee’s action argue that no witness — regardless of past government service or a prior pardon — should be able to simply refuse to answer legitimate congressional oversight questions without any consequence, and that letting this stand would set a troubling precedent for future oversight hearings of any administration. Whether the Justice Department ultimately decides to act on the referral remains to be seen, but the vote itself ensures the debate over pandemic accountability — and Fauci’s role in it — will remain a live political issue well into the fall. This story is developing.
Silencing the Truth: Top 4 Explosive Moments from the CIA Whistleblower Testimony on the COVID-19 Cover-Up
The halls of Congress echoed with serious allegations today, as the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic convened for a hearing that many are calling a turning point in the search for the pandemic’s origins. A senior CIA whistleblower—appearing under significant personal risk—delivered testimony detailing a coordinated effort within the intelligence community to suppress evidence pointing toward a laboratory leak in Wuhan. At The Modern Memo, we analyze the shocking claims of “hush money” at the CIA, the partisan boycott that left the room half-empty, and why the “Natural Origin” narrative is collapsing under the weight of declassified truth. The ‘Bribe’ to Flip the Assessment The most damning moment of the testimony centered on an alleged financial incentive offered to a specialized six-member team within the CIA (the Discovery Analysis Section). The Testimony: The whistleblower claimed that six out of the seven members of the team originally concluded with “high confidence” that COVID-19 originated from a lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The Payout: He testified that these senior analysts were offered a “significant financial incentive”—effectively hush money—to change their conclusion to “undetermined.” The “Hush” Order: The witness alleged that the flip was orchestrated by high-level officials to align the Agency with the “preferred” narrative of the previous administration’s health apparatus. Partisan Empty Chairs: Democrats Skip the Search for Truth In a move that drew blistering condemnation from GOP members, every Democratic lawmaker on the subcommittee skipped the hearing. The Criticism: Chairman Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) blasted the absence, stating, “Our colleagues across the aisle are more interested in protecting a narrative than protecting the American people from the next pandemic.” The “Science” Shield: GOP colleagues argued that by boycotting the hearing, Democrats are effectively signaling that they view the CIA’s internal politics as “settled science” that should not be questioned by the public. Dr. Fauci’s ‘Shadow Access’ to the CIA The whistleblower provided details on the alleged influence of Dr. Anthony Fauci within the walls of the CIA’s Langley headquarters. The Entry Logs: According to the testimony, Dr. Fauci was ushered into the CIA “without a record of entry” to meet with analysts during the heat of the 2020 investigation. The Influence: The whistleblower alleged that Fauci’s presence was designed to “steer” the intelligence analysts away from the lab leak theory, despite his lack of a security clearance for the specific intelligence being reviewed at the time. Systematic Destruction of Comms The fourth explosive moment involved the alleged systematic deletion of internal communications between the CIA and federal health officials. The “Secret” Emails: The witness testified that he saw directives instructing staff to avoid using official email channels when discussing “sensitive” origin theories, instead moving conversations to private accounts or encrypted apps to avoid future FOIA requests. The Disappearing Trail: This alleged scrub of the record has made it nearly impossible for congressional investigators to reconstruct the timeline of when the Agency’s “consensus” actually shifted. Final Word The CIA whistleblower’s testimony is the definitive proof that the “lab leak” was never a conspiracy theory—it was a suppressed reality. When you look past the noise of “partisan boycotts” and focus on the data—the alleged bribes to analysts and the unrecorded visits by Dr. Fauci—you gain a clearer picture of a bureaucracy that prioritized political optics over global safety. Quality information replaces the narrative of “natural spillover” with the reality of an institutional cover-up that may have cost millions of lives by delaying the truth. It allows you to see that while the chairs on the left side of the room were empty, the witness stand was full of the evidence Americans have been waiting for. By choosing to come forward, this whistleblower has ensured that the “Deep State” can no longer hide the origin of the world’s greatest catastrophe. Where Facts, Context, and Perspective Matter At The Modern Memo, our goal is simple: to provide clear, well-researched reporting in a media landscape that often feels overwhelming. We focus on substance over sensationalism, and context over commentary. If you value thoughtful analysis, transparent sourcing, and stories that go beyond the headline, we invite you to share our work. Informed conversations start with reliable information, and sharing helps ensure important stories reach a wider audience. Journalism works best when readers engage, question, and participate. By reading and sharing, you’re supporting a more informed public and a healthier media ecosystem. The Modern Memo may be compensated and/or receive an affiliate commission if you click or buy through our links. Featured pricing is subject to change. 📩 Love what you’re reading? Don’t miss a headline! Subscribe to The Modern Memo here!