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 U.S. Public Health Service: Guardians of America’s Health
By John Turley
On July 3, 2025
In Commentary, History, Medicine
The United States Public Health Service (USPHS) has quietly served as the backbone of the nation’s public health infrastructure for over two centuries. From its beginnings as a maritime medical service to its current role as a comprehensive public health organization, the USPHS has evolved to meet the changing medical challenges facing Americans and to protect and promote the health of the nation.
Origins and Early History
The U.S. Public Health Service traces back to 1798, when President John Adams signed “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.” This legislation established the Marine Hospital Service and created a network of hospitals to care for the merchant sailors who served America’s growing maritime commerce. The act represented one of the first examples of federally mandated health insurance, as ship owners were required to pay 20 cents per month per sailor to fund medical care.
The Marine Hospital Service initially operated a series of hospitals in major port cities including Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston. These facilities served not only sick and injured sailors but also played a crucial role in preventing the spread of infectious diseases that could arrive on ships from foreign ports. This dual function of treatment and prevention would become a defining characteristic of the USPHS mission.
The transformation from the Marine Hospital Service to the modern Public Health Service began in the late 19th century. In 1889, the organization was restructured and placed under the supervision of Dr. John Maynard Woodworth as Supervising Surgeon—later Surgeon General—marking the beginning of its evolution into a more comprehensive public health agency. The name was officially changed to the Public Health and Marine Hospital Service in 1902, and finally to the U.S. Public Health Service in 1912, reflecting its expanded mandate beyond maritime health.
Evolution and Expansion
The early 20th century brought significant expansion to the USPHS mission. The 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act gave the service regulatory responsibilities, leading to the creation of what would eventually become the Food and Drug Administration. During World War I, the USPHS took on additional responsibilities for military health and epidemic control, establishing its role as a rapid response organization for national health emergencies.
The Great Depression and World War II further expanded the service’s scope. The Social Security Act of 1935 created new public health programs administered by the USPHS, while wartime demands led to increased focus on occupational health, environmental health hazards, and the health needs of defense workers. The post-war period saw the establishment of the National Institutes of Health—originally called the Laboratory of Hygiene—as part of the USPHS, cementing its role in medical research.
Major Functions and Modern Roles
Today’s U.S. Public Health Service operates as part of the Department of Health and Human Services and supports major agencies and functions. The service’s mission centers on protecting, promoting, and advancing the health and safety of the American people through several key areas.
Disease Prevention and Health Promotion are the core of USPHS activities. It works with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), to lead national efforts in the prevention and control of infectious and chronic diseases. From tracking disease outbreaks to promoting vaccination programs, the USPHS a part of America’s first line of defense against health threats.
Regulatory and Safety Functions represent other crucial areas. The USPHS coordinates with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure the safety and efficacy of medications, medical devices, and food products. It works with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry monitoring environmental health hazards. Other USPHS components are involved in regulating everything from clinical laboratories to health insurance portability.
Emergency Response and Preparedness has become increasingly important in recent decades. The USPHS maintains rapid response capabilities for natural disasters, disease outbreaks, and public health emergencies. This includes the deployment of Commissioned Corps officers to disaster zones and the maintenance of strategic national stockpiles of medical supplies.
Health Services for Underserved Populations continues the service’s historic mission of providing care where it’s most needed. The Health Resources and Services Administration oversees community health centers, rural health programs, and initiatives to address health disparities among vulnerable populations. The Indian Health Service is an important part of the USPHS, providing healthcare to often isolated communities.
The Commissioned Corps
One of the most distinctive features of the USPHS is its Commissioned Corps, a uniformed service of over 6,000 public health professionals. Established in 1889, the Corps operates as one of the eight uniformed services of the United States, alongside the armed forces, NOAA Corps, and Coast Guard. Officers hold military-style ranks and wear uniforms, but their mission focuses entirely on public health rather than defense.
The Commissioned Corps provides a ready reserve of highly trained health professionals who can be rapidly deployed to address public health emergencies. From hurricane and disaster relief to pandemic assessment and treatment, Corps officers have served on the front lines of America’s health challenges, providing everything from direct patient care to epidemiological investigation and public health program management.
Contemporary Challenges and Future Directions
The U.S. Public Health Service continues to evolve in response to emerging health challenges. Climate change, antimicrobial resistance, mental health crises, and health equity concerns represent current priorities. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated both the critical importance of robust public health infrastructure and the challenges of maintaining public trust in health authorities.
As America faces an increasingly complex health landscape, the USPHS mission of protecting and promoting the nation’s health remains as relevant as ever. From its origins serving sailors in port cities to its current role addressing global health threats, the U.S. Public Health Service continues its quiet but essential work of safeguarding American health, adapting its methods while maintaining its core commitment to serving the public good.
The service’s history shows that effective public health requires not just scientific expertise, but also the institutional ability to respond rapidly to emerging threats, the authority to implement necessary interventions, and the public trust to lead national health initiatives. As new challenges appear, the USPHS continues to build on its more than two-century legacy of service to the American people.