Trump made clear that he considers the presidential pardon power extraordinarily broad, even while questioning the circumstances surrounding Fauci’s pardon.
“The most powerful thing a president has, they say, is the power of pardon,” Trump said.
“So he was pardoned by Biden, and I respect that. I know how powerful it is.”
Former President Joe Biden issued Fauci a preemptive pardon on Jan. 20, 2025, covering potential federal offenses dating from Jan. 1, 2014, through Jan. 19, 2025. The action was part of a broader series of controversial preemptive pardons Biden issued during his final hours in office.
The pardon has become particularly significant now that Fauci is facing renewed congressional scrutiny.
Republican lawmakers have spent years examining Fauci’s role in the government’s COVID-19 response, including questions involving federal research funding, pandemic policy decisions and the origins of the virus.
Trump, however, appeared to separate his concerns about the pardon itself from questions about how it may have been authorized.
“He probably didn’t sign this one,” Trump said.
“So, I can’t tell you what the law is.”
Trump was referring to continuing Republican scrutiny over the use of autopen technology during Biden’s presidency. The president suggested that questions about the authorization process could potentially become relevant if the legality of particular actions is challenged.
“Maybe there’s something on the autopen,” Trump said.
“Other than that, the power of pardon is very powerful.”
But it was Fauci’s Senate testimony that drew the strongest reaction from Trump.
On Wednesday, Fauci appeared before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee after being subpoenaed by Chairman Rand Paul, R-Ky. The hearing quickly became confrontational as Fauci declined to answer questions, repeatedly citing his constitutional protection against self-incrimination. The Senate hearing was officially scheduled as an examination of Fauci’s testimony concerning the COVID-19 pandemic.
Fauci ultimately invoked the Fifth Amendment 111 times, according to multiple reports. The extraordinary number of refusals became the defining moment of the hearing and immediately triggered demands from Republicans for further action.
Fauci defended his decision before the questioning began, arguing that the hearing was being driven by political hostility and that Paul was attempting to generate statements that could later be used against him.
“The only conclusion I can reach is that the sole reason he is calling me before this committee is to get me to say something, anything, that could vindicate his repeated public pledges that I end up, in his words, ‘behind bars,’” Fauci said.
Paul has rejected that characterization and has spent years pressing Fauci over his handling of the pandemic and the origins of COVID-19.
The Kentucky Republican’s latest investigation was accompanied by the release of thousands of pages of Fauci’s pandemic-era diary entries, covering a period when Fauci was one of the most influential figures in the federal government’s COVID-19 response.
The documents added another layer to an already contentious investigation and gave Republican lawmakers additional material to raise during Wednesday’s hearing.
After Fauci refused to provide substantive answers, Paul announced plans to move forward with a contempt-of-Congress effort.
The committee is expected to consider a contempt resolution in the coming days. If lawmakers proceed, the dispute could develop into a broader legal fight over the limits of congressional investigative authority, the Fifth Amendment and the effect of Biden’s preemptive pardon.
Trump was blunt when asked for his reaction to Fauci’s performance.
“Terrible,” the president said when asked about the testimony.
Trump also pointed out that Fauci was already a fixture of the federal government long before Trump entered national politics.
“I inherited Fauci,” Trump said.
“He was here from the 1980s.”
That history is important to Trump’s argument. During his first presidency, Fauci became one of the most recognizable faces of the government’s pandemic response, frequently appearing alongside Trump during COVID-19 briefings before the two publicly diverged over several policy questions.
Trump again emphasized that he had serious disagreements with Fauci’s recommendations during the pandemic.
“I would’ve had to close down the whole country if I listened to him,” Trump said.
The confrontation now puts Fauci at the center of a renewed Washington battle over the government’s COVID-19 response.
For Republicans, the issue is about accountability and unanswered questions surrounding decisions made during the pandemic. Fauci and his defenders, meanwhile, argue that the investigation has become a partisan effort aimed at criminalizing policy disagreements and scientific judgments.
The legal questions may prove just as consequential as the political ones.
A presidential pardon does not automatically resolve every possible legal issue surrounding testimony, particularly when the alleged conduct or potential exposure falls outside the period covered by the pardon. Legal experts are already debating whether Fauci’s Fifth Amendment claims can withstand congressional scrutiny and what consequences could follow if the Senate pursues contempt proceedings.
For now, the next move belongs to Congress.
Paul is preparing to push the committee toward a contempt vote, while Fauci’s attorneys are defending his constitutional right not to provide potentially self-incriminating testimony.
Trump’s response underscored the unusual nature of the situation: He defended the fundamental power of a president to issue pardons while simultaneously condemning Fauci’s refusal to answer lawmakers’ questions.
That combination is likely to keep the controversy alive in Washington.
With Republicans continuing their examination of the pandemic years and Democrats defending Fauci against what they describe as a politically motivated prosecution campaign, the Senate showdown is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.
The Fauci controversy has now moved beyond a debate over COVID-19 policy. It has become a fight over congressional power, executive clemency and whether a former federal official can be compelled to provide answers years after the decisions in question were made.
