Dr. Anthony Fauci invoked his Fifth Amendment right and declined to answer questions during a Senate hearing on Wednesday, July 29, 2026 [1].
The refusal marks a significant escalation in the long-standing conflict between the former top U.S. infectious-disease expert and congressional Republicans over the origins of COVID-19. By invoking the right against self-incrimination, Fauci has halted the committee's attempt to secure direct testimony regarding the pandemic's start.
Fauci appeared before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in Washington, D.C. [2]. The hearing was chaired by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky), who has frequently questioned Fauci's previous testimony and oversight of research funding. During the proceedings, Fauci reportedly invoked the Fifth Amendment dozens of times [3].
"Under the advice of my attorneys, I will invoke my right under the 5th Amendment of the Constitution to refrain from answering your questions," Fauci said [4].
The former official described the nature of the inquiry as a targeted effort to cause him legal harm. Fauci said that Senator Paul’s campaign to see him imprisoned is "unhinged" [5].
Senator Paul and other committee members sought answers regarding the origins of the virus, and the role of U.S.-funded research. However, the repeated use of the Fifth Amendment prevented the committee from establishing a factual record through Fauci's direct responses [6].
Legal experts note that the Fifth Amendment allows individuals to refuse to answer questions if the responses could potentially be used against them in a criminal proceeding. Fauci said he was acting under the direct guidance of his legal counsel [4].
“"Under the advice of my attorneys, I will invoke my right under the 5th Amendment..."”
The use of the Fifth Amendment by a high-profile former public health official indicates a shift from political disagreement to a defensive legal posture. This suggests that the investigation into COVID-19 origins has moved beyond policy debate and into a phase where the witness perceives a genuine risk of criminal prosecution. Consequently, the Senate committee is unlikely to obtain the specific admissions it seeks through this testimony, potentially shifting the focus toward subpoenas or other legal mechanisms to compel evidence.
