Louisiana Attorney General says state will investigate Anthony Fauci after Senate hearing where he invoked the Fifth

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said her office will investigate Dr. Anthony Fauci after a Senate hearing in which the retired government scientist invoked the Fifth Amendment when Republican lawmakers asked questions. Murrill, a Republican, made the announcement in a post on X on Saturday, according to The Hill.

The Hill reported that Murrill said “Louisiana and Missouri deposed Dr. Fauci,” describing the deposition effort as part of the lead-up to her state’s proposed investigation. The report also described the Senate hearing as “fiery,” and said Fauci pleaded the Fifth in response to questions from Republican members.

The announcement is framed as a state-level follow-on to federal congressional proceedings. A Senate hearing can put testimony on the record, but state attorneys general often use separate tools, including civil discovery and investigations, to determine whether state laws may have been implicated and whether any enforcement steps are warranted.

Murrill’s statement did not, in the report, identify specific statutes she believes could be at issue, any targeted agency or entity, or a timeline for when Louisiana investigators would take additional steps. The Hill also did not detail whether Louisiana’s investigation would rely on deposition materials taken as part of the earlier process or whether it would seek new interviews, subpoenas, or other investigative measures.

The practical stakes for the Louisiana inquiry would depend on what conduct Louisiana believes falls within its jurisdiction. Attorney general investigations can involve reviewing documentary evidence, pursuing sworn testimony, and determining whether alleged violations support further action under state consumer protection, public health, fraud, or other laws, depending on the facts developed.

Because the reported statement is not accompanied in the available record here by a published Louisiana legal filing or a detailed investigative plan, the scope of the inquiry and any potential enforcement consequences remain unclear. Any move to compel testimony or documents would also raise due-process and federalism questions, including how state investigatory demands interact with protections for witnesses who invoke constitutional rights.