Fauci’s Covid-era phone obtained by Senate panel ahead of contempt vote after divisive doctor pleaded the FIFTH more than 100 times during Capitol Hill grilling
A US Senate panel has obtained Dr Anthony Fauci's Covid-era phone as part of an investigation into the former top health official's conduct during the pandemic, with the move coming ahead of a planned contempt vote. The development follows a tense Capitol Hill hearing at which Fauci reportedly invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination more than 100 times when questioned by lawmakers.
The repeated use of the Fifth Amendment has fuelled further scrutiny of Fauci, who has remained a divisive figure over his role in shaping America's pandemic response as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Senators are now pressing ahead with efforts to compel further cooperation, with the seizure of his phone marking an escalation in the standoff between the panel and the former adviser.
- Senate panel obtains Fauci's Covid-era phone amid investigation.
- Fauci pleaded the Fifth over 100 times at hearing.
- Contempt vote looms as scrutiny of Fauci intensifies.
New here? Start with this
Fauci's Covid-era phone obtained by Senate panel ahead of contempt vote after divisive doctor pleaded the FIFTH more than 100 times during Capitol Hill grilling
Dr Anthony Fauci led the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and became the public face of America's response to the Covid-19 pandemic, advising the White House on measures such as lockdowns, masking and vaccine rollout. Since leaving office, he has faced sustained questioning from congressional Republicans over decisions made during that period, including on the origins of the virus and public health guidance.
A Senate committee has been investigating aspects of Fauci's conduct in that role. At a recent hearing, he made extensive use of his Fifth Amendment right, which allows witnesses to decline to answer questions that might incriminate them, rather than responding to lawmakers' queries directly.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the Senate panel's actions argue that robust oversight of unelected officials who shaped sweeping pandemic policy is a cornerstone of democratic accountability. They contend that Dr Fauci's repeated invocation of the Fifth Amendment, whatever its legal justification, only heightens the public's legitimate interest in understanding decisions on issues such as mask guidance, lab-leak communications and vaccine mandates that affected millions of lives and livelihoods. Obtaining his phone and pursuing a contempt vote, on this view, are proportionate tools to compel transparency when voluntary cooperation has proved insufficient, and are essential to restoring public trust in institutions many feel were not adequately scrutinised during the crisis.
The case against
Those defending Dr Fauci argue that invoking the Fifth Amendment is a fundamental constitutional right, not an admission of wrongdoing, and that its use should not be treated as inherently suspicious, particularly after years of aggressive and sometimes personally threatening political targeting. They caution that seizing a former official's personal device and pressing contempt proceedings risks setting a troubling precedent that could deter capable experts from ever entering public service, and that some of this scrutiny reflects partisan score-settling over pandemic policy disputes rather than a genuine, even-handed pursuit of accountability. On this view, real lessons from the pandemic response are better served by measured, bipartisan inquiry than by adversarial spectacle.