A rift has emerged among Senate Republicans regarding the strategy for pursuing a contempt of Congress referral against Anthony Fauci, the former White House COVID adviser. While Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is pushing for an expedited process, some of his Republican colleagues are raising concerns about the legal and procedural implications of such a move.
"It’s got to actually go through the full Senate. That’s the challenge." — Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla.
Senator Paul declared on Tuesday that he has garnered sufficient support to hold Fauci in contempt of Congress. This confidence, Paul indicated, stems from Fauci's repeated invocation of the Fifth Amendment during recent congressional questioning. Paul is now exploring a method that would bypass a full Senate floor vote, which traditionally requires a 60-vote threshold for success. Instead, he may seek to send the contempt referral directly to the Justice Department himself.
Supporting Senator Paul's initiative is Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), whose office is actively preparing a legal brief for acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. This memo aims to articulate why Fauci could be a viable target for prosecution. "My team is working right now on a memo to Blanche explaining why we think that he can be prosecuted for contempt of Congress," Hawley told Fox News Digital. Hawley’s argument centers on what he perceives as a legal contradiction, asserting that Fauci cannot simultaneously claim Fifth Amendment protection and benefit from a presidential pardon. "He’s not entitled to immunity, taken the Fifth, when he already has a pardon. It’s one or the other," Hawley stated, referring to the broad pardon President Joe Biden granted Fauci before leaving office, covering actions between January 1, 2014, and January 19, 2025. This pardon is central to the legal question of whether an individual already protected from prosecution can legitimately fear self-incrimination before Congress.
Momentum for the contempt resolution initially grew last Thursday when the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted to advance the measure against Fauci. Under standard Senate rules, such a measure would typically proceed to the full chamber for a vote. However, Senator James Lankford (R-Okla.) believes this traditional path must be followed, cautioning that shortcutting the process now could create problematic precedents for Republicans in the future. "It’s got to actually go through the full Senate," Lankford said. "That’s the challenge."
Paul's proposed workaround involves Vice President JD Vance, who, in his constitutional role as Senate president, would personally certify the contempt resolution and deliver it to the U.S. attorney overseeing the District of Columbia. Senator Lankford has flagged this maneuver as a long-term risk, warning that it could inadvertently equip future Democrat majorities with a tool to use against conservative officials. "The vice president would have to make a decision if he wants to try to change the structure of what has been done in the Senate, because then that would make them vulnerable three years from now to a future, maybe, Democrat Senate," Lankford explained.
A separate objection to the expedited process has come from Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), who questioned the fundamental legal groundwork for a contempt charge in this specific instance. "The first thing you have to do is identify what it is that you would be holding him in contempt for," Rounds said. "I think he took the Fifth. And doing so, I think it makes it more difficult for anybody to actually suggest that." Rounds also urged caution against making swift judgments on Fauci’s conduct during the pandemic's initial phases, highlighting the widespread confusion that characterized those early months. "Whether the advice was really good advice or if it was the best advice they had, it was a different time period," Rounds noted. "So I just hope we all remember that."
These internal Republican disagreements emerge at a politically sensitive juncture, as grassroots conservatives continue to demand answers regarding Fauci’s pandemic-era decisions, his past testimony, and the unresolved origins of COVID-19. Despite the hesitancy from some, other Republicans have aligned with Paul. Senator Ashley Moody (R-Fla.) has argued that the courts are the appropriate venue to ultimately determine the validity of Fauci’s Fifth Amendment claim. "I think Rand Paul feels very strongly that you can’t have him coming in and pleading the Fifth in this situation," Moody said, suggesting that litigation might be unavoidable regardless of the Senate’s decision. "I think he also believes ultimately this will wind up in a court and that will be clarified by a court, and I think that’s probably necessary as we move forward," she added.
Senator Paul has shown no indication of retreating from his efforts. His ongoing pressure campaign places Vice President Vance and the Justice Department in a pivotal position, facing a decision that will ultimately determine whether Fauci’s presidential pardon and his silence before lawmakers will permanently place him beyond legal reach.
