No matter how hard one might otherwise try, in today’s hyper-politicized and uber-polarized world one cannot always avoid having to engage in uncomfortable truths. That’s especially true if one happens to be a public figure, and especially one who has historically been as auspiced and declarative as Dr. Anthony Fauci. Yes, the otherwise now camera-shy Georgetown University professor was back in the news cycle this past week, having his remarkably toned octogenarian ass dragged back in front of global cameras as party to the latest distraction to far more pressing issues such as, say, why we are now six months and change into a “skirmish” that has resulted in gas prices a majority of us cannot reasonably afford and the fact that the Democratic Party still can’t find a senatorial candidate in Maine who doesn’t have a kinky sexual past.
But as I am reminded every time I report to my Home Depot for work and I STILL see a plurality of my co-workers still rocking tight-fitting face diapers in the middle of one of the most oppressive and enduring heat waves in recent memory it’s pretty clear to me that even more than SIX years since the acronym COVID became known to billions more than merely Dr. Fauci’s inner circle there are still an awful lot of people who simply won’t let go of the emotions and feelings, both logical and otherwise, that resulted from the playbook he signed off during the transformational spring and summer of 2020. And the fact that it all coincided with what an even greater amount of people was an existential election only exascerbated the significance of every decision, every reversal of previously postured philosophy and indeed every word that came out of his mouth at a time when we were collectively panicked, confused and justifiably desperate. Timing is everything in life, and Anthony Fauci just happened to be the genius in charge when all of this went down.
Now before anyone rises up in vitriolic defense of his candidacy for sainthood, let me assure you I respect and admire the good doctor immensely. I was already familiar with his history at how he dealt with critical health issues and skeptical constituencies. I watched the AMERICAN MASTERS piece on how Fauci tackled that, as an awful lot of folks who feel the need to offer their opinions were quick to resurrect. As the PBS website memorializes:
Dr. Fauci’s response to the AIDS crisis in the 1980s was first widely criticized by LGBTQIA+ activists. “We wanted treatment because we were sick and the only place where there was any possible area to get any treatment was through the clinical research system. And that’s what led us to you,” said AIDS activist David Barr. However, in later years he became a widely respected ally, eventually developing lifelong friendships with the activists.
It’s clear Dr. Fauci has historically never been one to shy away from standing up for the science he so passionately believes in even before he and COVID crossed paths. So I was more than a little concerned when the ATLANTIC’s Katherine J. Wu teed up his reemergence with this cautionary tale:
When Anthony Fauci arrives on Capitol Hill tomorrow to testify before Congress, he will be trailed by a security detail he’s paying for himself. Fauci has been testifying before the nation’s elected officials for roughly four decades now, since his days at the forefront of early AIDS research. In years past, he would have prepped by consulting colleagues and poring over data—he would have been there, as he might say, to speak for science. Now he’s under a subpoena from the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and has been conferring with his lawyers on how best to navigate a grilling about his own actions—and what seems to be an effort to catch him in a lie, one that isn’t covered by the blanket presidential pardon he received from Joe Biden. Once famed for being America’s consummate nonpartisan scientist, Fauci is now a far more polarizing kind of public figure: beloved and reviled for what he’s said to represent; targeted by threats to end his life. The more he talks, the more he stands to lose.
And as NEWSWEEK’s Khaleda Rahman reported in the aftermath, this time his playbook apparently had no room for pivoting:
Fauci repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment during Wednesday’s Senate hearing, declining to answer any of Senator Rand Paul’s questions about his handling of the COVID‑19 pandemic. Paul, who subpoenaed Fauci to appear, has long accused the former NIAID director of lying about the origins of the virus—allegations Fauci has consistently denied.
Paul asked:
- Fauci to explain his “reasoning” and “rationale” for approving NIH‑supported coronavirus research in Wuhan, including why he believed a BSL‑2 laboratory in China was capable of safely conducting such work.
- Whether Fauci had funded gain‑of‑function research “in other biolabs around the world.”
- Whether Fauci still stood by past comments defending high‑risk virology experiments, including a controversial avian‑flu study that produced a mammal‑transmissible strain.
- If Fauci was aware of gain‑of‑function research on monkeypox at Fort Detrick’s National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasure Center.
- Whether the CIA ever transferred funds to NIH through an interagency agreement.
- If NIH had ever conducted research “for or in coordination with” the CIA or ODNI.
- Whether Fauci had ever been read into any classified Department of Homeland Security program or special‑access program involving gain‑of‑function work.
- Whether scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology were capable of inserting a furin cleavage site into a coronavirus.
- Whether any American lab inspectors had ever visited the Wuhan facilities to verify safety conditions.
- If Fauci was aware that Dr. Shi Zhengli reportedly possessed more than 100 unpublished coronaviruses that could have been close relatives of SARS‑CoV‑2.
- Whether Fauci had refused President Biden’s 2025 pardon or believed the pardon required him to invoke the Fifth Amendment.
- Whether Fauci had changed his view on whether the benefits of gain‑of‑function research outweigh the risks.
Fauci responded to each question with the same statement, pleading the Fifth.
Anthony Fauci can lap whatever meager medical knowledge Paul has amassed. And his hard scrapple Brooklyn Italian roots could easily have dozened performance artists like Josh Hawley and Bernie Moreno, the latter gracing the hallowed halls of the United States Senate with a mockingly indignant “who the f-ck do you think you are?” I have little doubt Fauci would have gone viral had he at least followed his DNA instincts and immediately responded with “I’ll ask the same of you, Senator Moreno”. And with as many lawyers as Fauci had access to, I’m damn confident he wouldn’t have been entrapped at that particular moment. He owed those who believe in him that much spine.
We’ve been advised to trust the science. We’ve never been advised to trust lawyers. Unless, of course, we indeed have something to hide.
With that gnawing possibility out there, it was unsurprising that even the more objective reactions to Fauci’s silence were tinged with grave concern, as SILIVE’s Tom Wrobleski noted yesterday:
New York University law professor Ryan Goodman told CNN anchor Erin Burnett on her “Erin Burnett OutFront” program that Fauci may yet face legal peril after repeatedly invoking Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination during his testimony before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. “I think it makes it worse,” the Yale University-educated Goodman said of Fauci’s testimony, per the Daily Mail. The former Department of Defense special counsel added: “It’s even a curious way in which you wonder what his legal advice was, why they decided to do that.”
There are two potential roads one can go down when attempting to provide a response to such a rhetorical question. If indeed Fauci was merely guilty of being human and needing to remind us all that decisions on the fly, as in any actual war, are subject to change and even a few of Paul’s McCarthy-ish questions could have yielded potentially incriminating answers, all Fauci would have had to do was to craft a statement to that effect. To at least respect the people whose lives were irrevocably altered in ways that didn’t necessarily involve death and acknowledge their grief.
I mused about that very subject in an early piece where I took particular issue with far less qualified and far more opportunistic “experts” than Fauci clinging to their own level of power and relevance far beyond their expiration dates. Regular readers know my disdain for the likes of Barbara Ferrer, our local version of Paul who was delivering her own draconian declarations as the calendar turned to 2023. When the public opinion polls of her constituents finally reached an undeniable fever pitch only then did Ferrer back off on her thinly veiled threats continued lockdowns and mandates that created an ecosystem where she and others financially and politically benefitted. Reactions just as unjustified as those being offered up by the Senate this week don’t advance any healing, they merely perpetuate the paranoia and mistrust. It was quite true then; it’s more so now.
In choosing to non-respond in the finger-in-the-eye manner that he did, Fauci used the exact same playbook as the mocking president he attempted to educate, not to mention his far more clueless sons and, for that matter, any mob boss accused of crimes. To do that as we are approaching yet another existential election is especially selfish and tone-deaf.
No, Fauci’s words or lack thereof isn’t going to change anyone who adamantly loves or despises him. Those who watched through a partisan lens are dug in. But those who are on the bubble–those coveted “undecideds” less than 100 days before midterms we’re at least for now still scheduled to hold–giving the likes of Paul, Hawley and Moreno a chance to grab the spotlight without at least a stab at rebuttal gives them a renewed importance and impact that could very well tip election–or at least polls–in their direction. Many of these states are already on a razor’s edge. Fauci may not have been seeking a spotlight of his own but once again, timing is everything. Like it or not, Doc, you once again had a chance to make a material impact by speaking out. You–or perhaps your “counsel”–instead chose silence.
I’m not as much mad as I am disappointed, Dr. Fauci. The situation demanded an adult in the room to open their mouth and instead we got a client who was virtually masked. And unlike the hideous “Dr.” Ferrer, you look a lot better not wearing one.
Until next time…