Dr. Anthony Fauci, a central figure in the U.S. covid-19 government lockdowns, could face contempt of Congress after refusing to answer questions about the pandemic’s origins.

• On Wednesday, he appeared under subpoena before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The hearing grew so tense that Sen. Rand Paul ordered one of Fauci’s attorneys to be removed from the room.

After reading a statement accusing the panel of trying to entrap him, Fauci repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment, stating: “On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.”

• Paul argued that Fauci should have testified because former President Joe Biden issued him a preemptive pardon. A Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee panel will vote on holding Fauci in contempt on August 5.

Nearly 400 pages of previously classified documents, released on Tulsi Gabbard’s final day as director of national intelligence, form the basis for the subpoena. According to the files, Fauci funded gain-of-function coronavirus research at a Chinese government agency, collaborated with intelligence officials to downplay the theory that covid-19 came from this lab, and later denied under oath any knowledge of those discussions.

“We know beyond a reasonable doubt that Anthony Fauci did indeed fund gain-of-function research,” Paul told Fox News on June 28. “We have the evidence that the experiments were gaining in function; the viruses were becoming more lethal, more attachable to human cells and more infectious. We do know that this was going on. It was funded by the nih, specifically under the tutelage of Anthony Fauci.”

Paul further claimed Fauci recognized early that the virus did not originate in a wet market yet helped steer intelligence assessments away from the lab-leak theory to protect his reputation.

• Gabbard’s documents show that Fauci recommended specific scientists to help the U.S. intelligence community review covid-19’s origins. He also took part in discussions about the evidence and helped push assessments away from a lab-leak explanation.

These actions contradict his 2024 congressional testimony, in which he denied under oath any knowledge of or involvement in such intelligence discussions. He not only repeatedly publicly disagreed with analysts who said the Wuhan Institute of Virology was the origin but also worked to sideline them while telling Congress he was uninvolved in such discussions.