A Republican-controlled Senate committee voted along party lines on August 6 to hold former government health official Dr. Anthony Fauci in contempt. The vote followed Fauci’s decision to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights during a recent hearing, a move that has now set the stage for a potential request for the Department of Justice to pursue criminal charges against him.
Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, who chairs the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, announced his intention to personally “hand-carry” the vote results to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who currently leads the DOJ. Paul emphasized the procedural weight of the decision, stating, “As a committee, we have voted – the majority – to refer this, so that will be accomplished today.”
The legal landscape surrounding this contempt vote remains contentious. Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani noted that Fauci possessed a legitimate right to invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid potential charges related to allegations of making false statements, obstruction, or perjury. “It was the right legal move, even though it’s a bad look politically,” Rahmani previously told.
David Schertler, a lawyer representing Fauci, issued a statement condemning the committee’s actions. He characterized the contempt vote as “a crude political stunt intended to punish Dr. Fauci” and further stated, “It is shameful and wrong that Senator Paul is abusing his power by trying to weaponize the Justice Department against an honorable public servant.”
The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding whether it is currently investigating Fauci or plans to do so in the future, nor did it address accusations that the department is becoming increasingly politicized.
Here’s a look at what a congressional contempt vote means and what could come next for Fauci: Holding individuals in contempt of Congress can involve sending criminal referrals to the Justice Department. Congress also maintains the power to bring a civil case to enforce a subpoena, though the criminal referral process is the path currently being pursued by the Senate committee.
Historically, many congressional referrals have functioned as largely symbolic reprimands. However, some have been followed by actual criminal charges. Contempt votes have typically gone to the full Senate or House of Representatives before the referral of criminal charges to the DOJ. Despite this, Paul argued that the committee can make the referral independently because the resolution falls “outside the ordinary bill-making process.”
In recent years, the frequency of Congress holding public officials in contempt has significantly increased. For example, Attorney General Merrick Garland was found in contempt by the Republican-led House in 2024 for withholding the audio recording of President Biden’s interview with special counsel Robert Hur regarding the mishandling of classified documents.
The current political climate has seen a rise in such actions across party lines. Trump aides Mark Meadows, Dan Scavino, Steve Bannon, and Peter Navarro were each held in contempt by the House in 2021 and 2022—when the chamber was controlled by Democrats—for defying subpoenas in a House panel’s investigation into the January 6 Capitol attack. Both Bannon and Navarro were eventually found guilty in federal court and served prison sentences.
The pattern of contempt citations extends further back. In 2019, the House voted to hold two top Trump administration officials, Attorney General William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, in contempt after they refused to comply with oversight requests. Similarly, in 2014, a Republican-controlled House held former IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt for refusing to testify, and in 2012, former Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt for refusing to hand over documents.
Even though many legal experts believe Fauci had a legitimate claim to invoke the Fifth Amendment, the Justice Department under the Trump administration has demonstrated a willingness to pursue controversial criminal charges. Observers point to the pending case against prominent Trump critic and former FBI Director James Comey, who faces scrutiny for posting an image of seashells in the shape of “86 47” on social media.
According to Merriam-Webster, “86” is a slang term meaning “to throw out” or “to get rid of,” and Trump is the 47th U.S. president. While Comey stated in a subsequent post that he “didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence” and that he opposes “violence of any kind,” the ongoing legal activity highlights the unpredictable nature of federal investigations involving high-profile public figures.
In a unanimous vote, the Senate in 2016 voted to hold the sex ad website Backpage.com in contempt for failing to comply with their investigation into how they screen online ads for warning signs of child sex trafficking.
A Republican-controlled House also held former IRS official Lerner in contempt of Congress in 2014, during former President Barack Obama’s time in office, for refusing to testify about her role in the IRS scrutinizing ta
But several legal experts of varying ideological backgrounds have said Fauci faced some genuine risks of criminal exposure.
In 2019, the House voted to hold two top Trump administration officials, Attorney General William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, in contempt of Congress after they defied subpoenas seeking information about Trump’s failed attempt to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census.
A Republican-controlled House also held former IRS official Lerner in contempt of Congress in 2014, during former President Barack Obama’s time in office, for refusing to testify about her role in the IRS scrutinizing tax exemption applications of conservative Tea Party groups.
“(Fauci) can take the Fifth if he thinks that this could, in fact, incriminate him in with respect to criminal conduct,” John G.
Malcolm, a vice president focusing on rule-of-law issues at Advancing American Freedom, said at an Aug.
3 webinar hosted by The Federalist Society.
Advancing American Freedom is a conservative advocacy nonprofit founded by Republican former Vice President Mike Pence.
Malcolm noted, however, that Paul himself has previously questioned the legitimacy of the pardon for Fauci because it was allegedly signed with an autopen.
In addition, state prosecutors have said they were going to initiate investigations into Fauci, and Biden’s pardon wouldn’t cover potential state crimes.
“It is not completely far-fetched, and I think that Dr.
Fauci is entitled to take them at their word, that they have every intention of launching criminal investigations against him,” Malcolm said.
Speaking at the same webinar, Clark Neily, a senior vice president for legal studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, said it was “a little bit precious” for Paul to say, on the one hand, that Fauci’s pardon is invalid, and then say on the other that it gives Fauci complete protection in testifying.
Comey deleted the post within hours, after some Trump supporters interpreted the post as a threat.
The case has sparked condemnation from free speech advocates, and even some conservative legal scholars have denounced the charges as an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.
Contributing: Zachary Schermele
