Senate panel says Anthony Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment more than 100 times as lawmakers pressed for COVID-19 details

A New York Post report says Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former top U.S. infectious-disease official, invoked the Fifth Amendment more than 100 times while appearing before the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, as lawmakers pressed for information related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The report also describes Fauci’s response as stonewalling lawmakers and centers on questions about the origins of COVID-19 and details Fauci recorded in a personal diary.

According to the report, Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee members used the hearing to challenge Fauci on topics that included COVID-19 origins and other particulars that lawmakers said were relevant to the public record. The report states that lawmakers confronted Fauci with material from the diary and sought further answers, while Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment repeatedly rather than responding substantively to specific questions.

The story highlights remarks by Janice Dean, a former Fox News meteorologist, who criticized Fauci publicly for what she characterized as refusing to answer lawmakers. The New York Post report attributes Dean’s criticism to Fauci’s use of the Fifth Amendment and includes a quote describing him as “hiding behind the 5th Amendment,” adding that she said the behavior reflected a lack of willingness to answer questions under oath.

The report characterizes the hearing as occurring against the backdrop of public scrutiny over how the federal government handled early information about COVID-19 and how officials later described key facts. It says the hearing focused in part on Fauci’s “transformation” from government official to public figure, while also referencing the diary as a source of chronology that lawmakers wanted to test through sworn answers.

The legal backdrop for invoking the Fifth Amendment in congressional settings is that witnesses may decline to answer questions if responding could provide a basis for self-incrimination. In a congressional context, however, repeated invocation can also create practical friction for oversight, because it can limit lawmakers’ access to details that could otherwise inform legislative findings or referrals.

It is not clear from the New York Post report what specific questions triggered each invocation or whether the committee has pursued additional procedural steps tied to the testimony. The report does not provide a complete hearing transcript or identify, by date and question, the diary passages lawmakers sought to address, and the full factual record would depend on the committee’s official materials.