Dr. Anthony Fauci’s July 29, 2026, appearance before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, chaired by Sen. Rand Paul, was a contentious spectacle marked by his repeated invocation of the Fifth Amendment.
The 85-year-old former NIAID director, subpoenaed after declining voluntary testimony, opened by accusing Paul of an “obvious obsession” and “unhinged” campaign aimed at putting him “behind bars.” He cited Paul’s prior calls for prosecution, critical comments, and the recent public release of Fauci’s unredacted personal diary. On advice of counsel, he then declined nearly every question—invoking the Fifth roughly 111 times (reports range from over 100 to about 115)—with the fixed reply that he declined based on his constitutional rights against self-incrimination.
Compounding the optics was the preemptive “full and unconditional” pardon Biden granted Fauci on January 19, 2025—his final full day in office—covering any potential offenses from 2014 tied to his government service. That document was executed via autopen, the mechanical signature device, amid later revelations that White House staff (including then-Chief of Staff Jeff Zients) authorized its use after late-night meetings, with limited contemporaneous evidence of Biden’s direct personal review of every name. Critics have hammered the process as a last-minute shield that bypassed traditional accountability, raising unresolved questions about presidential intent and validity even as Biden insisted he made the decisions and that autopen use is longstanding and legal. The pardon did not cover potential new perjury or obstruction from this hearing itself, leaving Fauci still vulnerable and the Fifth as his remaining fortress.
Questions covered long-disputed topics: NIH funding related to gain-of-function research, the Wuhan lab and COVID-19 origins, pandemic response decisions, diary entries, and even trivial probes (tie color, carpet color) meant to test the scope of the privilege. Fauci answered no questions substantively. One of his attorneys was ejected after attempting to interject. Paul and other Republicans expressed frustration, warned of obstruction consequences, and signaled plans for a contempt-of-Congress vote, arguing the prior Biden preemptive pardon (covering actions through early 2025) limited the privilege’s applicability to new testimony risks such as perjury.
Fauci framed the hearing as a political trap rather than legitimate oversight, noting his extensive prior congressional appearances without invoking the Fifth. Supporters of the inquiry viewed the blanket silence as obstructive and damaging to accountability on pandemic policy and research. Critics of the proceedings saw it as a partisan exercise unlikely to yield new facts given the adversarial history between Paul and Fauci. The session produced no substantive answers, amplified existing divides over COVID origins and handling, and left legal questions (contempt, the interplay of pardon and privilege) for further process. It underscored how polarized the residual debates remain, 5-6 years later.
[BREAKING: Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier is sending a plane to Washington DC to obtain mountains of evidence against Dr. Fauci so a state-level case can be brought — CIRCUMVENTING the pardon]
Commentary
I never trusted Fauci, even in 2020. There was something oddly offputting about his demeanor. It was—to be frank—psychopatic. His emotionless glee over his new power was almost as disturbing as his ties to Bill Gates and his refusal to be honest about his gain-of function experiments that produced Covid-19.
In April 2020, his omniscient pessimism destroyed hope almost every day. After a relatively upbeat press conference or a positive report of some community reaching natural (herd) immunity, he invariably was all gloom and doom. The stock market — understandably — tanked after almost every interview with him.
My logbook entry for 1-1-2022: As we look forward to a new year, there is a sense of foreboding, based on the last two. In the back of many people's minds is the fact that Joe Biden is president of the United States, Pelosi and AOC, and Fauci are in tremendous positions of power and have used it to force coercions of conscience everywhere. It makes for a cloudy outlook for Americans. (That's why we need to seek God and find Him as promised in Jeremiah 29:13).
On March 8, 2020, he stated clearly: “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask.” He added that while it might block a droplet or make people feel better, it did not provide the protection people imagined. On April 3, Fauci reversed course and recommended face coverings for the public and he strongly endorsed masking. The ambivalence was weird because the early messaging was categorical (“no reason”) and the later full-throated push for universal masking (including mandates in many places) came without unpacking the prior rationale in real time.
Liberal Adventists and SDA health institutions & most SDA physicians hailed Fauci/CDC as a genius and saviour, unable to grasp the cognitive dissonance between their blind loyalty for a dictatorial government and their last reading of the Great Controversy.
To this date, I am aware of no changing of the mind of the aforementioned SDA institutions and individuals regarding their support for Fauci, Covid, the mandates, and the ominious enthusiasm that blue states, cities and the 2021 presidential administration demonstrated for their new found powers over our lives. Zero individuals have reversed their blind support, in my limited knowledge. Perhaps there are some that I am not aware of. We would love to hear from them.
The United Nations and their World Health Organization do not share our worldview. The UN promotes evolution, legal recognition of gender identity, LGBTQ+ rights, and religious pluralism. Even if we do not adopt those ideas, our association with the UN lends credibility to their agenda (and in-credibility to ours).
Adventism has a sacred mission: to call people “out of Babylon” (Revelation 18:4). That mission is at odds with aligning ourselves—even outwardly—with the ideological descendants of Babel.
Being granted consultative status with the UN, like the GC has, is not a neutral action. It binds the SDA Church to specific expectations and protocols. One of those protocols produced the 2015 SDA VAX statement, by ADCOM.
The UN promotes vaccination as a core part of their mandates. They actively encourage NGOs (including the GC), to support immunization efforts, participate in campaigns (e.g., Immunization Agenda 2030, Gavi alliances,), and help increase vaccine acceptance and coverage. The Seventh-day Adventist Church an as NGO of the United Nations was expected to support vaccination efforts and they did. ADCOM spoke for you in this regard and caused great harm to the SDA church by doing so. To date, they have not taken the 2015 immunization statement down. They could do this in 15 minutes, and put a landing page in its place that says “Under Review.”
Why won’t they do this? Because they receive funding, partnerships, and recognition for contributing to these UN goals.
That means more to them then you do.
****
“Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to turn aside after a multitude to wrest judgment” (Exodus 23:2).