Sen. Rand Paul is pressing his case that Anthony Fauci should face prosecution for lying to Congress, days after the former health official invoked the Fifth Amendment more than 100 times at a Senate hearing Paul chaired.
Paul, the Kentucky Republican, appeared on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" and told interviewer Geist that Fauci should face a felony charge if the evidence supports a conviction. The appearance came after a contentious Senate hearing the previous week in which Fauci declined to answer questions, repeatedly invoking his constitutional right against self-incrimination, more than 100 times by Paul's count.
The senator did not hold back about what he believes the legal standard requires. Fox News Digital reported Paul's full remarks on the program, in which he laid out a case built on what he says is a gap between Fauci's public testimony and his private communications.
When Geist asked directly whether Paul still believes Fauci belongs behind bars, the senator answered without hedging:
"That's a good question. Did he lie to Congress? I think he did lie to Congress. And I think, to be fair, that people who lie to Congress should be charged with a felony and, if convicted, go to jail. That's also a felony crime. So I think both destroying records and lying to Congress are serious crimes."
Paul has been making this argument for years. In a 2021 appearance on "Hannity," he said lying about gain-of-function research, the practice of modifying viruses to study how they might become more dangerous, carries a penalty of up to five years in prison. At the time, he said he had already referred the matter to the Department of Justice but did not expect the Biden administration to act on it.
"We've referred it to the Department of Justice. I don't think Biden's Department of Justice will do anything with it, but yes, it is very dangerous to have public officials who we need to have trust in coming and lying to us, but he has lied dozens of times."
Biden's DOJ never pursued the referral, at least not publicly. And Paul has noted that a pardon issued by former President Joe Biden may have shielded Fauci from legal consequences during that window, a point the senator raised again in his latest round of media appearances.
The hearing that set off this latest exchange took place the week before Paul's "Morning Joe" appearance. Fauci, who led the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for decades, sat before the Senate panel Paul chairs and refused to testify. He invoked the Fifth Amendment more than 100 times.
Geist remarked during the interview that Fauci, guided by his lawyers, likely wanted to avoid speaking to Paul given the senator's long-standing advocacy for criminal prosecution. Paul did not dispute that characterization, but he made clear the silence only deepened his suspicion.
The senator said his primary motivation was not personal but institutional. He told Geist that what mattered most to him was learning the truth about gain-of-function research that he believes was connected to Fauci's agency before the COVID-19 pandemic.
Paul's case has sharpened over time. In a 2024 interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham, he pointed to what he described as a stark contradiction between Fauci's private communications and his public testimony:
"I think he lied to Congress, which is a felony. You know, several folks from the Trump administration were accused of lying to Congress and carted off to jail with FBI agents all over the property, host, you know, yanking them out of their house early in the morning. But Anthony Fauci did lie to Congress. We know that from his own words, not because I say lies, but his private email say he was lying. Virtually everything he said in private contradicted what he was saying in public."
That double standard, aggressive prosecution for some, none for others, sits at the center of Paul's argument. He has repeatedly pointed to the treatment of Trump administration figures who faced perjury allegations and were subjected to early-morning raids. Fauci, by contrast, has faced no charges despite what Paul calls a documented record of contradictions.
Geist pressed Paul on whether he believed Fauci acted with "nefarious" intent. Paul chose a different word.
"I would say it's wrongheaded. I'm not sure I would use the word 'nefarious.' I would say that he is of the belief that the common man can't handle the truth, and that people like him who are the science, the elite, and the experts should make decisions."
He went further, describing Fauci's approach as rooted in a kind of intellectual elitism that he compared to the concept of philosopher kings, rulers who believe their superior knowledge justifies withholding the truth from ordinary citizens.
"lies, platonic lies, because he's one of the philosopher kings. So it really is about an attitude, but it is an arrogance, and it is an arrogance that shouldn't go unchallenged."
Paul's framing matters. He is not calling Fauci a villain motivated by malice. He is describing a government official so convinced of his own authority that he believed deceiving the public was justified, and who, Paul argues, broke the law in the process.
Paul is also pursuing contempt charges following Fauci's refusal to testify at the Senate hearing. Fox News Digital's reporting referenced the senator's push for contempt proceedings after the more than 100 Fifth Amendment invocations. The specifics of that effort, its procedural mechanism, its timeline, and whether it will advance, remain unclear.
Fox News Digital reached out to both Fauci and Paul's office for additional comment. No responses were reported.
Several questions remain unanswered. Which specific records does Paul allege were destroyed? What exact emails does he cite as proof of contradiction? And will the current Department of Justice treat the referral any differently than Biden's did?
None of those answers came out of the "Morning Joe" interview. But Paul has made one thing plain: he is not moving on.
When a former government official invokes the Fifth Amendment more than 100 times rather than answer a senator's questions, the public deserves to know why, and "trust the experts" is no longer a sufficient answer.
