Dr. Anthony Fauci spent years telling Americans to trust the science. However, when the retired federal health official appeared before the U.S. Senate last week to answer questions about his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, the answer he gave repeatedly was not about science.
It was, “I respectfully decline to answer.” Fauci invoked his Fifth Amendment right against selfincrimination 111 times during a July 29 hearing before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental AffairsCommittee,according to reports from the hearing.
The marathon use of the constitutional protection quickly became one of the most talked-about moments of the proceeding. The hearing, led by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., focused on Fauci's role in the federal government's COVID-19 response, the origins of the virus, government-fundedresearch and questions surrounding Fauci's previous statements to Congress and the American public.
Rather than answer most of the questions, Fauci relied on the same response again and again, that, on the advice of his attorneys, he was invoking his rights under the Fifth Amendment.
The Fifth Amendment is one of the protections contained in the Bill of Rights. Among other provisions, it says that a person cannot be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself.
The protection against self-incrimination is intended to prevent the government from forcing someone to provide testimony that could potentially be used to help prosecute that person. That does not, however, mean that invoking the Fifth Amendment is an admission of guilt.
It is an important distinction, particularly in a politically charged hearing such as the one involving Fauci. A witness can invoke the Fifth when answering a particular question could reasonably expose the witness to criminal liability.
The protection can apply even when the witness has not been charged with a crime. In some circumstances, a witness can also refuse to answer individual questions while answering others.
Fauci did not simply refuse to answer questions about potentially incriminating conduct. He repeatedly declined to answer questions across a broad range of subjects.
Senators pressed him on issues surrounding COVID-19 policies and his conduct during the pandemic, whilesomequestionsbecame so basic that the repeated use of the Fifth Amendment became almost surreal. At one point, questions reportedly included such mundane subjects as what day of the week it was and what color tie Fauci was wearing.
Fauci declined to answer those questions as well. That spectacle prompted critics to argue that Fauci was turning a constitutional safeguard designed to protect Americans from self-incrimination into a blanket shield against congressional questioning.
The criticism became especially pointed because Fauci was granted a preemptive presidential pardon by President Joe Biden in January 2025, covering federal offenses committed between Jan. 1, 2014, and Jan. 20, 2025.
The pardon itself does not establish that Fauci committed a crime and legal experts have emphasized that receiving a pardon is not legally equivalent to admitting guilt. The pardon, however, has become part of the legal argument surrounding Fauci's testimony.
Fauci's lawyers and supporters maintainthathisconstitutional rights remain intact and that there could still be circumstances in which answering a question could create legal exposure. Legal experts have also pointed out that a presidential pardon is limited to federal offenses and does not automatically eliminate every conceivable source of criminal exposure, including potential state matters.
Critics, meanwhile, argue that the sheer number of Fifth Amendment invocations made the hearing look less like a search for information and more like a refusal to participate. That is what made the number 111 so striking.
TheFifthAmendmentwas never designed to be a declaration of guilt but neither was it intended to make congressional oversight impossible. Congresshasmechanismsfor dealing with witnesses who refuse to testify, including contempt proceedings and, in certain circumstances, granting immunity that can remove the risk of selfincrimination.
Paul has announced plans for the committee to consider whether Fauci should be held in contempt of Congress. The controversy also reflects just how divisive Fauci's legacy has become.
During the pandemic, Fauci became one of the most recognizable faces of the federal government's response to COVID-19. He defended lockdowns, masking and vaccination policies and became a trusted source of information for millions of Americans.
Healsobecamealightning rod for criticism from those who believed the government went too far and that important questions about the origins of COVID-19 and the scientific basis for certain policies were never adequately answered. Those disagreements continued long after Fauci's retirement from federal service.
In a 2024 House hearing, Fauci faced questions about the pandemic response, including the origins of the six-foot social-distancing recommendation. Investigators said Fauci had testified that the six-foot recommendation “sort of just appeared” rather than being the result of a specific scientific study.
For supporters of Fauci, the repeated use of the Fifth Amendmentwasalegitimate legal strategy in what they viewed as a politically motivated proceeding. For his critics, 111 refusals represented something very different, a former government official who once demanded public trust now refusing to provide answers about the decisions that affected virtually every American.
There is also an important lesson in the controversy. Taking the Fifth does not mean a person is guilty.
Yet, when a public figure invokes it 111 times during a congressional hearing, particularly when the questions range from major policy decisions to extraordinarily basic matters, the decision is almost certain to raise questionsaboutwhatthewitness is unwilling, or legally unable, to say. For Fauci, those questions are unlikely to disappear anytime soon.