Last week, an 85-year-old physician sat before a Senate committee and, for the first time in more than 250 congressional appearances spanning five decades of public service, declined to answer. Dr. Anthony Fauci invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination over one hundred times, telling the panel that its chairman’s “evident obsession with calling for my prosecution” left him with no other reasonable choice. He was invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, not because he believed he had committed a crime, but because he no longer trusted that anything he said would be treated as testimony rather than ammunition. It was a stunning scene, and it should trouble anyone who cares about how this country treats its public servants once the politics of a crisis outlast the crisis itself.
Fauci’s career is, by any fair measure, one of the most consequential in the history of American medicine. He joined the National Institutes of Health in 1968 and led the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from 1984 until his retirement in 2022, advising seven presidents from Reagan to Biden. He was, for two decades, among the most cited scientists on earth. He helped transform HIV/AIDS from a near-certain death sentence into a manageable chronic condition, and his work undergirded PEPFAR, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which is credited with saving more than 25 million lives worldwide. For that work, President George W. Bush — a Republican — awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2008. Doctor Francis S. Collins, former director of the National Institutes of Health, has called Dr. Fauci “a national treasure” and has stated that “Dr Fauci is the most dedicated public servant I have ever known. His contributions have saved countless lives from HIV/AIDS, Ebola and SARS-CoV-2, and will stand as a profoundly significant gift to humanity.” None of that is in dispute even by his fiercest critics.
What is in dispute is his conduct during COVID-19, when he became the public face of a federal response that asked Americans to accept school closures, business shutdowns, masking, and eventually vaccine mandates. Senator Rand Paul, who now chairs the Senate committee investigating him, has spent years arguing that the National Institutes of Health funded research in Wuhan China contributed to the virus’s emergence, and that Fauci misled Congress about it under oath.
Ahead of last week’s hearing, Paul released more than 1,100 pages of Fauci’s pandemic-era diary entries, obtained after an eight-month search led by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Paul argued that what Fauci wrote privately differs from what he told the public. Paul has now pledged to seek a contempt-of-Congress vote, which he says could open the door to Justice Department prosecution. Neither Paul nor Kennedy seems to understand that a diary entry is a statement fixed in time and may involve personal musing and speculation and that opinion and public statements can evolve as new knowledge becomes available. Or perhaps they don’t care.
Reasonable people can criticize specific decisions made during the pandemic. Some restrictions may have lasted too long. Officials could have communicated uncertainty more clearly. Public health agencies sometimes failed to explain why recommendations changed, allowing confusion and mistrust to spread. The shifting public health guidance that so many Americans remember as evidence of dishonesty is, to most working scientists, simply what science looks like in real time: recommendations changed because the evidence changed, not because anyone was hiding the truth. But that is not to say those criticisms don’t deserve serious discussion.
What deserves equal recognition, however, is the unprecedented uncertainty confronting public health officials. They faced a rapidly evolving virus, incomplete data, overloaded hospitals, political polarization, and an information environment saturated with misinformation. Perfect decisions were impossible.
The main issue in contention is Senator Paul’s accusation that Dr. Fauci falsely testified that NIH never funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan virology lab. The element of funding is a technical issue. NIH did not directly fund research at the Wuhan lab; they provided a grant to a group known as EchoHealth who in turn funded research at Wuhan. The second element requires a brief explanation of gain-of-function research.
Gain-of-function is laboratory research that deliberately alters a virus or other pathogen to give it new or enhanced biological properties—such as increased transmissibility, infectivity, or the ability to infect a new host—in order to better understand disease mechanisms, improve surveillance, or develop vaccines and treatments. Senator Paul contends that the research did meet the gain-of-function definition while Dr. Fauci contends that it did not meet the federal guidelines in effect at that time and further that the research was not conducted on the SARS-CoV-2 virus and did not result in COVID-19. He continues to maintain that his testimony accurately reflected NIH policy and definitions. Federal reviews, including one commissioned by the National Institutes of Health, have concluded that the specific EcoHealth-funded research did not meet the technical definition of gain-of-function in place at the time, a conclusion Fauci’s critics dispute but have not conclusively rebutted.
As these hearings have pointed out, there is not a single definition of gain-of-function among virologists or microbiologists. Some argue for a tighter definition while others do not. To further add confusion to the question, the American Society for Microbiology has called for a more precise, evidence-based definition of the term gain-of-function.
It is worth being precise about what has and has not been shown. No evidence has emerged that the coronavirus was engineered or leaked from a laboratory; the scientific consensus still points toward a natural spillover event from a wild source.
The elements of perjury require two things: the person knowingly gave false testimony and did so with intention to deceive. Testifying to something that is believed to be true but is later proven to be false does not make the previous testimony perjury. Because the underlying definitions in this charge are under intense debate in the scientific community, the basis for a perjury charge is extremely weak. But we know from recent experience with the reflecting pool that the lack of evidence does not stop the Trump administration from making unfounded criminal charges.
The perjury allegations remain only allegations, litigated in hearing rooms, press conferences, and cable news segments rather than in courts. And Fauci already received a preemptive pardon from President Biden before leaving office specifically to protect him from prosecution over pandemic-era statements — a fact Paul acknowledged, raising the question of exactly what additional legal jeopardy this pursuit is meant to produce.
That question points toward the real story here, which is less about virology than about power. Since President Trump’s return to the White House, several of Fauci’s most vocal critics — Kennedy chief among them — occupy positions from which they can direct the machinery of government at a single retired scientist. A congressional hearing that features senators trying to provoke Fauci by asking about tie colors and the day of the week, his attorney forcibly removed from the room, and a gallery of Trump-aligned activists standing by to testify about vaccine mandates is not a forum for discovering facts.
It is a stage for finishing an old argument by other means. They are attempting to turn a pandemic that killed more than a million Americans, into the fault of one man rather than a shared national failure, much of which occurred on Trump’s watch. And part of it may be personal, given how frequently Fauci found himself publicly correcting a president who does not forget being corrected.
This seems to me to be a case of selective persecution and part of the Trump revenge program.
Fauci may have been an imperfect messenger, and reasonable people can fault his early missteps on masking guidance or his sometimes brusque certainty in front of cameras. But there is a meaningful difference between legitimate oversight of pandemic policy — which Congress should absolutely conduct — and a years-long campaign whose stated goal, in Fauci’s own paraphrase of his chief antagonist, is to see him “behind bars.” When a senator with subpoena power spends a hearing pursuing a scientist’s diary rather than debating the substance of research policy, the effort looks less like accountability and more like retribution dressed up as investigation. It is incredible to me that any reasonable person would believe that a man who spent his entire professional career trying to protect the American public from viral diseases would suddenly and intentionally try to trick them into wearing face masks and closing schools.
The American public deserves a legitimate, evidence-based scrutiny of pandemic-era policies . What the country has gotten instead, at least in the current hearings, looks less like accountability than theater, and neither a scientist’s record nor the public’s understanding of what actually happened is served by a proceeding that produced a great deal of heat and, by most independent accounts, no new facts.
Public servants who make consequential decisions under uncertain conditions deserve scrutiny, not immunity from criticism. But they also deserve a process that seeks truth rather than a scalp. A man who spent fifty years fighting AIDS, Ebola, and a novel coronavirus should not have to plead the Fifth to protect himself from the country he served. That he felt compelled to do so says less about Anthony Fauci than it does about the politics that have consumed the men now pursuing him. This is just one more in a string of embarrassments caused by the Trump administration that have brought shame to the American people in the eyes of the world.
Image generated by author using ChatGPT.
Sources:
1. NBC News, “Anthony Fauci invokes Fifth Amendment right not to answer questions at GOP-led Covid hearing” (July 29, 2026): https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/anthony-fauci-5th-amendment-testify-covid-hearing-rand-paul-rcna589793
2. NewsNation, “Republican COVID-19 allegations against Dr. Anthony Fauci explained”: https://www.newsnationnow.com/health/what-fauci-is-accused-of/
3. The Washington Post, “Fauci’s critics have power. They’re coming after his pandemic record.” (August 2, 2026): https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/08/02/faucis-critics-have-power-theyre-coming-after-his-pandemic-record/
4. TIME, “Fauci Pleads the Fifth at Senate Hearing on COVID, Escalating Long-Running Clash With Republicans” (July 29, 2026): https://time.com/article/2026/07/29/fauci-fifth-amendment-senate-hearing-covid-rand-paul-republicans/
5. The Washington Post, “Rand Paul threatens to hold Fauci in contempt after he declines to answer questions” (July 29, 2026): https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/07/29/fauci-set-face-rand-paul-senate-gop-after-release-his-covid-diary/
6. AOL News, “Republicans ramp up attacks on Fauci”: https://aol.com/republicans-ramp-attacks-fauci-100000419.html
7. NIH MedlinePlus Magazine, “Meet Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., former Director of NIAID”: https://magazine.medlineplus.gov/article/meet-anthony-s-fauci-m.d-former-director-of-the-national-institute-of-allergy-and-infectious-diseases
8. Academy of Achievement, “Anthony S. Fauci, M.D.” (career timeline): https://achievement.org/achiever/anthony-s-fauci-m-d/
9. PBS American Masters, “Anthony Fauci biography and career timeline”: https://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/anthony-fauci-biography-and-career-timeline/26116
10. Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Anthony Fauci”: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Anthony-Fauci
The President’s Private Prosecutor
By John Turley
On June 10, 2026
In Commentary, Politics
How Trump Turned the Department of Justice into a Tool of Personal Revenge
There is an old maxim in law: fiat justitia ruat caelum — let justice be done though the heavens fall. It reflects the principle that the law belongs to everyone equally and is not meant to serve personal grudges. Critics argue that Donald Trump’s second administration has embraced a very different view: that the Department of Justice can be used to pursue those who have challenged, investigated, or defeated him.
This is not simply a partisan accusation. It is based on a pattern in which Trump publicly identifies enemies and calls for action against them, followed by Justice Department investigations or prosecutions. The targets have included former administration officials, prosecutors, election experts, and individuals who prevailed against Trump in court.
The Guardrails Come Off
Trump’s first term provided occasional glimpses of this tendency, but institutional resistance often limited its reach. His second term began with far fewer constraints.
The selection of Pam Bondi as attorney general was widely viewed as a signal that loyalty would take precedence over the traditional independence of the Justice Department. During her confirmation hearing, Bondi declined to assure senators that the White House would remain separate from prosecutorial decision-making. That exchange foreshadowed what followed.
Within months, Trump directed investigations into former administration officials Miles Taylor and Christopher Krebs. Taylor had authored the anonymous 2018 op-ed describing internal resistance within the administration. Krebs, Trump’s former cybersecurity chief, had publicly stated that the 2020 election was secure. Trump accused Taylor of “treason” while signing an executive memorandum ordering an investigation.
Whether or not either man had committed any wrongdoing, the sequence was striking: public presidential condemnation followed by federal scrutiny.
More consequential were the cases involving figures directly connected to Trump’s legal battles.
The Letitia James Case
Perhaps no public official has drawn Trump’s anger more consistently than Letitia James, the New York attorney general whose civil fraud case resulted in a massive judgment against Trump and his business organization.
In October 2025, James was indicted on bank fraud charges shortly after Trump publicly urged Bondi to move against his political opponents. The circumstances surrounding the case raised immediate questions.
According to reports, the original prosecutor assigned to the matter concluded that evidence was insufficient to support criminal charges and declined to proceed. He was replaced by Lindsey Halligan, a former member of Trump’s personal legal team who had no prosecutorial experience. Within weeks, Halligan secured an indictment.
The legal process that followed was unusual. The indictment was later dismissed. Subsequent efforts to obtain new indictments reportedly failed before grand juries, an outcome that is relatively rare given the traditionally high success rate prosecutors enjoy in grand jury proceedings.
Yet the investigation continued.
Critics saw the episode as evidence that prosecutorial decisions were being driven not by evidence but by determination to target a political adversary. Supporters countered that investigations should continue if legitimate questions remained unresolved.
Regardless of one’s interpretation, the case illustrates a recurring theme: Trump publicly demands action against an opponent, and federal law enforcement soon responds.
The Comey Prosecution
James Comey has been a target of Trump’s anger since his dismissal as FBI director in 2017. That conflict entered a new phase in September 2025 when Comey was indicted on charges of making false statements and obstruction.
The indictment arrived only days after Trump publicly called for prosecution on social media. Trump later suggested that he hoped there would be “others.”
Comey pleaded not guilty and moved to dismiss the case, arguing that he was the victim of selective and vindictive prosecution. Civil liberties advocates condemned the prosecution as an abuse of presidential power.
Whether the charges ultimately survive judicial scrutiny remains to be seen. But the timing reinforced the perception that DOJ actions increasingly followed Trump’s personal grievances. The ongoing “86 47” prosecution further emphasizes the appearance of political vengeance.
E. Jean Carroll: From Plaintiff to Target
No case better illustrates the concerns surrounding Trump’s Justice Department than that of E. Jean Carroll.
Carroll sued Trump for defamation after he denied her allegations that he sexually assaulted her in a Manhattan department store decades earlier. Two juries ruled in her favor, awarding her a combined $88.3 million in damages.
In May 2026, the Justice Department opened a criminal investigation into Carroll herself.
The investigation centers on statements Carroll made during civil litigation regarding funding for her legal expenses. Prosecutors are examining whether financial assistance connected to a nonprofit associated with LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman was disclosed accurately and whether any false statements were made under oath.
Carroll is now 82 years old. She successfully sued Trump and won two jury verdicts. The federal government headed by the man she defeated in court is investigating whether to charge her with federal crimes.
The optics are difficult to ignore.
Carroll’s attorneys argue that the investigation lacks substantive merit and represents retaliation against a successful plaintiff. Legal observers note that if charges are eventually filed, Carroll would likely argue that the case constitutes vindictive prosecution — the use of prosecutorial power to punish someone for exercising a legal right.
Whatever the ultimate outcome, the sequence is extraordinary: a citizen sues a powerful public figure, wins twice before juries, and then becomes the subject of a federal criminal investigation under that same figure’s administration.
A Larger Pattern
Individually, each case can be debated on its merits. Together, they form a pattern that has become increasingly difficult for critics to dismiss as coincidence.
Many of the administration’s highest-profile investigations involve people who share one characteristic: they challenged Trump politically, legally, or personally. Former election officials. Former administration insiders. Prosecutors. Investigators. Civil plaintiffs.
The pattern is often the same. Trump publicly attacks an individual. He demands action. An investigation follows. Organizations tracking retaliatory government actions have documented numerous examples of this sequence. Legal scholars frequently identify such timing as one of the warning signs associated with selective prosecution.
The concern is not merely whether individual targets are guilty or innocent. The larger issue is whether prosecutorial decisions are being made independently or whether they are increasingly shaped by presidential preferences.
That distinction matters because the Department of Justice possesses powers unlike those of any other federal agency. It can investigate, indict, and imprison citizens. Its legitimacy depends heavily on public confidence that those powers are exercised fairly and consistently.
The Cost of the Process
Defenders of the administration argue that investigations should not be immune from scrutiny simply because targets claim political persecution. That is true. Public officials, former officials, and private citizens alike should be subject to the law.
But critics respond that the problem is not accountability. It is selectivity.
Even unsuccessful investigations impose significant costs. Legal defense can consume hundreds of thousands of dollars. Grand jury investigations create stress, uncertainty, and reputational damage. Years of litigation can disrupt careers and lives regardless of whether convictions are ultimately obtained.
The process itself becomes a punishment.
Courts and grand juries have occasionally pushed back. Several high-profile cases have encountered significant legal obstacles. But judicial intervention often occurs only after substantial personal and financial costs have already been imposed.
The Weaponization Paradox
Perhaps the greatest irony is that Trump’s political rise was fueled in part by his claim that the justice system had been weaponized against him.
For years, he argued that prosecutors, investigators, and political opponents used government institutions to pursue personal or partisan objectives. That argument resonated with many Americans because the principle involved is important. The justice system should not be used as a political weapon.
The challenge for Trump’s administration is that the same characteristics he identified as evidence of weaponization now appear in cases initiated by his own Justice Department.
He argued that prosecutors were motivated by personal animus rather than evidence. Critics now make the same allegation about prosecutions involving Letitia James, James Comey, and E. Jean Carroll.
He argued that the process itself was punishment. His opponents now make the same claim.
He argued that political pressure shaped prosecutorial decisions. Critics point to repeated examples in which Trump’s public demands appear to precede DOJ action.
Whether one accepts those comparisons or rejects them, the contradiction is difficult to ignore.
A Democracy’s Stress Test
The Justice Department was designed to serve the public interest rather than the interests of any single president. That principle became especially important after Watergate, when both parties embraced reforms intended to insulate law enforcement from political interference.
The durability of those norms is now being tested.
The central question is not whether every investigation discussed here will ultimately succeed or fail. Courts will decide that. The more important question is whether Americans will continue to believe that justice is being administered independently.
If citizens come to believe that criminal investigations are triggered by personal loyalty or presidential anger, confidence in the rule of law inevitably suffers.
The power to prosecute is among the most formidable powers government possesses. In a constitutional democracy, that power must belong to institutions, not individuals.
Whether that principle remains intact may prove to be one of the defining questions of Trump’s second term.
Image generated by author using ChatGPT
Sources
• Just Security — Chronology of Trump/DOJ Targeting (Oct. 2024)
• PBS NewsHour — Comey Indictment & Trump Vows More Prosecutions (Sept. 2025)
• Slate — Trump’s Vengeance Tour (May 2026)
• Time — Trump Vows to Prosecute Political Enemies (March 2026)
• Protect Democracy — Retaliatory Action Tracker (ongoing)
• Yahoo/AP — Trump Directs DOJ to Investigate Taylor & Krebs (2025)
• Time — DOJ Launches Criminal Investigation into E. Jean Carroll (May 28, 2026)
• Axios — DOJ Probes Reid Hoffman Nonprofit Over Carroll Funds (May 28, 2026)
• CNN — Carroll and the Pattern of Trump Retribution (May 28, 2026)
• MS NOW — Vindictive Prosecution Analysis (May 28, 2026)
• Newsweek — Timeline of Carroll’s Legal Battles with Trump
• CNBC — Trump DOJ Intervenes in Carroll Case (Oct. 2020)
• CNBC — DOJ Fails Second Time to Indict Letitia James (Dec. 2025)
• ABC News — Letitia James Indicted (Oct. 2025)
• PBS — Full Indictment of Letitia James
• House Judiciary Democrats — Investigation into DOJ Retaliation Against Letitia James (March 2026)
• 19th News — From Letitia James to Comey, Trump’s DOJ as Instrument of Revenge
• Sen. Whitehouse Letter to Barr re Carroll (Sept. 2020)