Fauci Gets Criminally Referred to DOJ — What He Does Next Is Sick
A legal defense fund has been established for Dr. Anthony Fauci as the former federal health official faces a widening series of congressional and state investigations tied to the government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Anthony S. Fauci M.D. Legal Defense Fund went public in August, saying it was created to help pay legal representation and related administrative costs associated with ongoing inquiries and proceedings involving the longtime former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
The fund's website says it was established to help cover Fauci's legal representation and associated administrative costs. It is soliciting contributions from supporters and states that donations are not tax-deductible charitable contributions.
The arrangement is more structured than a personal fundraising account. Fauci's attorneys told Reuters that the fund is organized as a trust with an independent corporate trustee, that Fauci will receive no payments or distributions from it, and that neither Fauci nor his lawyers will control how the money is managed. Legal invoices are to be reviewed by an independent adviser, and any money remaining after the legal matters conclude is expected to be donated to charity.
The fund arrives at a moment when Fauci, 85, is once again at the center of a political and legal fight over the pandemic, despite having left federal service more than three years ago.
Fauci led NIAID for 38 years and advised seven presidents. He became one of the most recognizable officials in the country during the COVID-19 crisis, appearing frequently at White House briefings and publicly defending masking, distancing, vaccination and other measures that were adopted during different stages of the pandemic.
Those policies made him a trusted scientific voice to many Americans and a deeply polarizing figure to others. Republican lawmakers have spent years examining federal funding for coronavirus research, the government's communications about the origins of COVID-19, and whether Fauci or other officials gave Congress misleading information about research connected to the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Fauci has repeatedly denied wrongdoing and has maintained that he testified truthfully. The origins of COVID-19 remain unresolved: U.S. intelligence agencies have reached differing assessments, with some favoring a laboratory-related origin and others favoring natural transmission, often with low or moderate confidence.
The immediate legal pressure on Fauci increased sharply after a July 29 Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing chaired by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., one of Fauci's most persistent critics.
Fauci appeared under subpoena and invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in response to more than 100 questions. He accused Paul of pursuing what Fauci called an 'unhinged' campaign to put him in prison and argued that the hearing was designed to induce statements that could be used against him.
Paul took the opposite view. He argued that former President Joe Biden's sweeping January 2025 pardon of Fauci removed the risk of prosecution for conduct covered by the pardon and therefore undermined Fauci's basis for refusing to answer questions about that conduct.
The legal issue is not as simple as either side's political argument suggests. Legal experts cited by Reuters said courts have not definitively resolved whether a witness who received a presidential pardon can still invoke the Fifth Amendment before Congress regarding pardoned conduct, particularly when answers could create exposure for later, unpardoned conduct or other potential offenses.
On Aug. 6, the Republican-led Senate committee voted along party lines to hold Fauci in contempt of Congress. The committee's official announcement said the resolution passed 8-5. Paul described Fauci's refusal to answer as obstruction of the committee's investigation and said the matter should be referred to the Justice Department.
The referral was sent to the Justice Department, and a department spokesperson told the Associated Press that it had been received and was under review. A referral is not a criminal conviction, does not establish that Fauci committed a crime and does not guarantee that prosecutors will bring charges.
Democrats on the committee challenged both the legal theory and the process. Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., the panel's top Democrat, argued that the contempt resolution lacked a sound legal basis, threatened constitutional protections and risked weakening Congress' own oversight authority in future investigations.
Fauci's lawyer, David Schertler, has likewise called the congressional effort politically motivated and said Fauci's legal team believes he acted within his constitutional rights.
The dispute is further complicated by the breadth of Biden's pardon. The Justice Department's official clemency record shows that Biden granted Fauci a full and unconditional pardon on Jan. 19, 2025, for federal offenses he may have committed from Jan. 1, 2014, through the date of the pardon that arose from or related to his government service as NIAID director, a member of the White House coronavirus response teams, or chief medical adviser to the president.
The pardon does not cover conduct after Jan. 19, 2025. That distinction is one reason the current confrontation over Fauci's testimony could still produce new legal questions even though much of the underlying pandemic-era conduct falls within the pardon period.
The pressure is also no longer limited to Congress.
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier issued an investigative subpoena to Fauci on Aug. 5 as part of a state inquiry into awards, professional opportunities, financial incentives, grants and pandemic guidance that affected Florida businesses and consumers. Uthmeier has said investigators want to determine whether Fauci personally profited from guidance he issued while in government.
That is an allegation being investigated, not an established finding. Reuters reported that West Virginia and Louisiana have joined or supported the Florida effort, increasing the number of jurisdictions in which Fauci's lawyers may need to review and produce records.
Fauci's attorneys told Reuters that the growing number of investigations could become lengthy and expensive even if they do not result in charges. Schertler said Fauci had done nothing wrong and characterized the investigations as harassment, while Republican officials have argued that unresolved questions about pandemic decision-making justify continued scrutiny.
A separate Senate investigation led by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., has also obtained a copy of the government-issued iPhone Fauci used while at the Department of Health and Human Services.
Johnson announced on Aug. 5 that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations had received the phone data from HHS. His office later said the device contained more than 34,000 text messages and 522 voicemails, although only three saved contacts appeared in the copy provided to investigators.
Johnson and Paul have begun releasing selected communications from the device. The senators say the records could answer questions Fauci declined to address in testimony. Fauci's legal team has objected to what it describes as a politically driven campaign and has also resisted a request for Fauci to voluntarily appear before Johnson's separate subcommittee.
The phone material has therefore become part of a broader records battle that now includes congressional testimony, Fauci's pandemic-era diary, emails and state subpoenas.
Another recent development has added fuel to Republican scrutiny without, at this point, establishing wrongdoing by Fauci himself.
Dr. David Morens, a former senior adviser to Fauci at NIAID, pleaded guilty in federal court in August to conspiring to evade public-records requirements and conceal government documents connected to COVID-19 research funding. Prosecutors said Morens used personal email and took steps to avoid federal records laws.
Fauci was not charged in Morens' case, and the Associated Press reported that he was not implicated in the criminal charges. Republican investigators have nevertheless cited the case as they continue examining communications within NIAID during the pandemic.
The new legal defense fund is also drawing attention because Fauci left government with an unusually high federal salary and has earned substantial income since retiring.
OpenTheBooks, a government-spending watchdog that has obtained Fauci's financial disclosures, reported that his final federal salary was $480,654 and described him as the highest-paid federal employee at the end of his career. He earned more in salary than the president's statutory $400,000 annual pay.
Fauci's post-government finances require more careful wording than some online headlines have used.
A New York Post analysis published in July 2026 estimated that Fauci had generated about $12.5 million in post-government earnings from sources including book income, speaking engagements, awards, academic work and retirement benefits. The same analysis estimated that Fauci and his wife, Christine Grady, had a combined net worth of roughly $27.5 million.
That means the widely repeated $12.5 million figure refers to estimated post-retirement earnings in that analysis, not to Fauci's total net worth.
Earlier financial-disclosure reporting provides another benchmark. OpenTheBooks said Fauci and Grady's combined reported financial assets exceeded $15 million at the end of 2023, an increase of more than $3.5 million during Fauci's first full year outside government. The watchdog said most of that increase was associated with Fauci's accounts, while also noting that the disclosure documents did not identify the source of every large deposit.
Published figures for Fauci's federal pension also vary because they are estimates rather than a publicly confirmed payment amount. OpenTheBooks has produced estimates ranging from more than $355,000 to above $400,000 annually depending on assumptions about Fauci's final 'high-three' salary calculation, service credit and retirement timing. It is therefore more accurate to describe his pension as unusually large and estimated in the high hundreds of thousands of dollars than to present a single outside estimate as an official government figure.
Fauci's wealth does not prevent supporters from contributing to a lawful legal defense fund, and the fund's organizers say the structure is intended to prevent donations from becoming personal income to him. But his finances have become part of the political debate surrounding the fundraiser, with critics questioning why a wealthy former official needs outside assistance and supporters arguing that even a wealthy individual can face enormous costs when responding to multiple government investigations in different jurisdictions.
The timing of the fund reflects how quickly Fauci's legal exposure has broadened in 2026.
In a matter of weeks, he has appeared before the Senate under subpoena, invoked the Fifth Amendment repeatedly, been the subject of a committee contempt referral to the Justice Department, received a state investigative subpoena, faced additional inquiries supported by other state attorneys general and seen congressional investigators obtain a copy of his government phone.
None of those developments, standing alone or together, proves criminal misconduct.
The contempt referral still requires prosecutorial review. The Florida inquiry is an investigation. The phone records are being examined. Fauci's pardon covers a broad period of his federal service but does not automatically settle every constitutional or procedural dispute involving his later testimony.
That distinction is central to the current story.
Republican investigators say the public is entitled to answers about decisions that affected millions of Americans and about federal funding and communications surrounding the origins of the pandemic. Fauci and his attorneys say he has already testified extensively, that the allegations against him are unfounded and that the current investigations amount to a politically motivated effort to punish a retired public servant.
For now, the legal defense fund is the clearest sign that Fauci and his lawyers expect the fight to continue.
May you like
The fund is accepting contributions as the Justice Department considers the Senate referral, state investigators pursue records and congressional committees continue examining pandemic-era communications. What those inquiries ultimately establish remains unresolved, but the legal and political battle surrounding one of the most recognizable figures of the COVID-19 era has clearly entered a new phase.
