Senator Rand Paul (R‑Ky.) announced Monday that he will reissue a criminal referral to the Department of Justice against Dr. Anthony Fauci, alleging perjury tied to the COVID-19 investigation. Paul’s move follows revelations that Fauci’s controversial pardon was reportedly signed using an autopen, not President Trump’s handwritten signature—prompting renewed calls for legal accountability.
“Perjury is a crime. And Fauci must be held accountable,” Paul wrote on X, adding that he will forward a fresh referral directly to the Trump-era DOJ.
Paul alleges that Fauci lied repeatedly under oath, including during Senate testimony where Fauci denied that the National Institutes of Health funded gain-of-function research associated with the Wuhan lab. Paul argues these denials qualify as clear violations of perjury law.
The autopen controversy erupted after reporting by The New York Times revealed that a White House aide, not Trump, approved autopen signatures on pardons late at night—including Fauci’s—raising questions about the legitimacy of the process. Paul argues the method casts doubt on the authenticity and authority behind the pardon .
While autopens are legally permissible for official presidential documents, using them for pardons tied to such high-profile figures is unprecedented and fuels claims that a pardon may not reflect genuine executive intent—even though Biden’s team later defended its legality.
Paul’s criminal referral asserts that Fauci’s testimony before Congress was knowingly false, and that Biden’s pardon does not shield him from prosecution for perjury. The senator, who chairs the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, previously subpoenaed Fauci for questioning on COVID origins—an effort that coincided with the pardon.
This development intensifies the ongoing saga over accountability during the pandemic. It reignites debate on whether a post-crime pardon can absolve false statements made under oath. The DOJ has not yet responded to Paul’s new referral, and no timeline has been provided for any investigation or action.
As this unfolds, Congress and the public face key questions: Can a pardon erase perjury commitments? And was the pardon sufficiently authorized to begin with?
