10 Questions For Congress To Ask Fauci About His Covid Corruption

Anthony Fauci is scheduled to testify before Congress on Wednesday, July 29, 2026, giving senators an opportunity to confront him with the extraordinary trove of evidence released by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., in recent days concerning Fauci and the coordinated effort to suppress evidence that Covid-19 was a laboratory-made virus.

The records include Fauci’s emails, private diary entries, and previously hidden Slack messages of the Fauci-funded scientists who produced the “Proximal Origin” paper at his behest.

These newly released records do not merely raise broad questions about Fauci’s conduct. They expose a sprawling record of contradictions between his private knowledge and his public statements, each of which demands a direct answer under oath when he appears before the Senate. These 10 questions are only the beginning.

1. The Gain-of-Function Funding Denial

Why did you testify under oath that NIH “has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research” at the Wuhan Institute of Virology when the documentary record shows a direct funding chain from your agency to the experiments in question?

NIAID awarded EcoHealth Alliance a grant to study bat coronaviruses in China, with the Wuhan Institute serving as a subrecipient. Successive papers by WIV researchers expressly acknowledged NIH and NIAID funding. In 2016, NIAID halted funding for EcoHealth’s gain-of-function work, only for the project to be mysteriously reinstated. Soon after, EcoHealth President Peter Daszak emailed agency officials, jubilantly announcing that his organization’s “gain-of-function” research funding pause had been lifted.

Your own private words confirm that you understood the nature of the work. In a Feb. 1, 2020, email summarizing the critical conference call on Covid-19’s origins, you wrote that scientists in Wuhan were known to be conducting gain-of-function experiments designed to determine how bat viruses adapt to human infection. You further recognized that the outbreak’s emergence in the same city “heightened” suspicion about its origin.

Given that the funding trail was documented and your own contemporaneous email described the Wuhan work as gain-of-function research, on what basis did you give Congress an unqualified denial?

2. The Market Myth

In your personal diary entry of Jan. 26, 2020, barely a month into the outbreak, you wrote, “Now we know the market was not the source, it was the amplifier.”

Why, then, did you and the public-health establishment continue presenting the Huanan Seafood Market as the probable site at which Covid-19 first crossed into humans, rather than acknowledging that your own contemporaneous information indicated that the virus had already been circulating before it reached the market?

3. The White House Deception

At the April 17, 2020, White House press conference, with President Trump standing beside you, you invoked the “Proximal Origin” paper to assure the public that Covid-19 had emerged naturally, claiming that the virus’s genetic characteristics were “totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.”

You portrayed the paper as the independent work of outside scientists and claimed not to know the authors’ names. Yet the documentary record shows that you helped set the process in motion, organized the critical Feb. 1 conference call from which the paper emerged, remained in direct contact with lead author Kristian Andersen, and reviewed drafts before publication. When Nature Medicine accepted the paper, Andersen personally thanked you for your role: “Thank you again for your advice and leadership as we have been working through the SARS-CoV-2 ‘origins’ paper.”

Why did you present the paper as independent scientific confirmation when you had been intimately involved in the process that brought it into existence?

4. The Delete-After-Reading Orders

Why did you instruct NIH Director Francis Collins on Feb. 2, 2020, the day after the “Proximal Origin” conference call, to “please delete this e-mail after you read it”?

Why did you issue another delete-after-reading instruction to your own staff in July 2020?

You later testified that you had never deleted federal records or sought to obstruct their production. What legitimate government purpose was served by those instructions? Were the emails actually deleted, and how many other communications did you direct colleagues or subordinates to destroy?

5. The Private Lab-Leak Assessments

Your own notes from the Feb. 1, 2020, conference call record that only two of the 12 scientists participating believed a natural origin was likely, while “the rest felt that deliberate insertion was possible.”

Released Slack messages make the contradiction even more damning. Kristian Andersen, the lead author of the “Proximal Origin” paper, privately wrote that “the lab escape version of this is so friggin’ likely to have happened because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario.” The authors continued privately assigning meaningful probabilities to a laboratory origin, expressing doubts about their own conclusions, and discussing how to curate their communications, even as they publicly defended the paper and portrayed laboratory involvement as scientifically implausible.

These were the scientists you had helped assemble, advised, remained in contact with, and tasked with producing the paper that you later promoted from the White House podium as independent scientific evidence against a laboratory origin.

So which is it? Were you somehow unaware that the scientists whose paper you helped initiate, reviewed, and publicly promoted privately believed that a laboratory escape was “so friggin’ likely” and continued to harbor serious doubts about their own conclusions? Or did you know what they actually believed and nevertheless present their paper to the American public as settled scientific proof that no laboratory-based scenario was plausible?

What specific scientific evidence justified the transformation of a laboratory origin from a privately credible, even likely, explanation into a publicly discredited fringe theory? And why were the American people never told that the scientists behind the paper did not privately believe the certainty they were selling to the public?

6. The ‘Keep Dancing’ Coordination

On May 23, 2021, the same day reports emerged that three researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology had become ill with Covid-like symptoms in November 2019, Kristian Andersen wrote to his “Proximal Origin” co-authors after meeting with you and your team.

According to the newly released Slack message, Andersen told them that you and your team “get it and deeply appreciate what we’re doing, so we’ll keep dancing.”

What exactly did you and Andersen discuss? What did he mean by “what we’re doing,” and why did he characterize your continued public messaging as a coordinated performance?

7. The Furin Cleavage Site Silence

The furin cleavage site is a short insertion in the virus’ spike protein that enables host enzymes to cleave the protein efficiently, significantly affecting the virus’ ability to infect cells and spread. SARS-CoV-2’s furin cleavage site is absent from all of its closest known relatives. Indeed, no natural SARS-like coronavirus with a furin cleavage site has ever been found.

Researchers had previously demonstrated a keen interest in introducing such cleavage sites into SARS-related coronaviruses. The 2018 DEFUSE proposal, led by your longtime grantee Peter Daszak in collaboration with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, expressly proposed searching for “potential furin cleavage sites” and inserting “appropriate human-specific cleavage sites” into SARS-related viruses before testing their growth in human airway cells.

Your diary records that by Jan. 31, 2020, approximately half of the scientists involved in the early discussions believed the virus looked “constructed,” with the furin cleavage site at the center of their concerns.

Why did you conceal those extraordinary concerns from the public and then spend the following years insisting that the scientific evidence weighed decisively against any laboratory involvement?

8. The Intelligence Steering

Newly released documents indicate that you drew upon relationships developed over approximately two decades with members of the United States intelligence community during the government’s assessment of Covid-19’s origins.

Sen. Paul’s investigation alleges that you used those relationships to influence the officials and experts participating in the assessment, while scientists associated with the natural-origin narrative were presented as authoritative advisers.

What communications did you have with intelligence officials concerning the origin of the virus? Which scientists did you recommend or introduce to them? Did you disclose those scientists’ funding relationships, their participation in the “Proximal Origin” process, and their private doubts about the conclusions they were promoting publicly?

Why did you publicly present yourself as a detached scientific observer while privately participating in the national-security process that helped shape the government’s conclusions?

9. The Prize Nomination Network

Newly released emails show that you repeatedly solicited scientists with longstanding financial relationships with NIAID to nominate you for prestigious and potentially lucrative awards, while you and members of your taxpayer-funded staff supplied and helped prepare the nomination materials.

Federal ethics rules prohibit government employees from using public office for private gain or using the authority of their position to induce another person to provide a financial or other benefit. NIH rules also required advance written ethics approval before an employee could accept an outside award.

Did you obtain written ethics approval before soliciting these nominations, and did you disclose that the nominators were scientists whose research was funded by the agency you controlled? Did ethics officials know that NIAID employees had performed substantial work on nomination packages intended to secure personal honors and prize money for their own director?

Most fundamentally, do you believe it was legal or remotely appropriate to ask scientists financially dependent upon your agency to nominate you for lucrative awards while your taxpayer-funded staff prepared the submissions? What safeguards existed to prevent either the reality or appearance of an exchange in which federal research patronage was repaid with personal honors and substantial financial rewards?

10. The School-Shutdown Denial

In various interviews, you insisted that you “had nothing to do with” closing schools and that you had not recommended locking anything down.

Yet your March 15, 2020, diary entry records that you spoke directly with New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, convinced him to close the city’s schools, urged him to close its bars and restaurants, and secured his agreement to act on your recommendation. You then held a similar call with California Governor Gavin Newsom’s chief of staff, who told you that your television appearances had prompted the governor to close schools, bars, and restaurants across California.

Your public advocacy at the time is also difficult to reconcile with your subsequent denials. On March 15, 2020, you publicly expressed support for aggressive national restrictions, including a possible 14-day shutdown, while New York City’s schools closed that same day.

Why did you later deny responsibility for closures that your own contemporaneous diary portrays you as personally initiating and celebrating?

The Record Speaks for Itself

When he appears before the Senate on Wednesday, he should not be permitted to deflect with bureaucratic theater, selective memory, and semantic evasion. Senators must confront him with each of these 10 questions and demand direct answers, publicly and under oath.