Former President Biden’s decision to grant preemptive pardons to his family and close allies has stirred a pot of controversy, with critics likening the move to giving out “Human Fund donations” rather than offering real value.
Among the pardoned was Dr. Anthony Fauci, the long-time director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and COVID-19 adviser. Critics argue that this pardon might cement Fauci’s image as a criminal in the public eye, potentially tarnishing Biden’s legacy.
The pardon came shortly after Biden granted a controversial pardon to his son, Hunter Biden, claiming unfair and selective prosecution. Trump responded by pardoning the so-called “J-6 Hostages.”
The Justice Department, however, told a court that accepting a pardon implies a confession of guilt. Biden’s statement on Monday countered this notion, asserting that the pardons were not an acknowledgment of wrongdoing.
Biden’s justification for these preemptive pardons was to protect “dedicated, selfless public servants” from politically motivated prosecutions, highlighting Fauci’s contributions to a “safer and healthier” America. Kelly Krohnert, a Georgia-based COVID analyst, criticized the inconsistency between Biden’s statements and his administration’s actions.
Laura Powell, a lawyer known for challenging California’s medical misinformation law, argued that the Department of Justice’s stance was incorrect, referencing a 2021 ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that a pardon does not equate to a confession of guilt.
Dr. Fauci appreciated the gesture, noting he had not sought a pardon. “I’ve done nothing wrong and this is no admission of any guilt,” Fauci told Reuters. Biden issued a total of seven pardons on his last full day in office, covering various individuals, including members of the Jan. 6 committee and his own family, with some backdated to 2014. Fauci’s pardon covers any offenses during his tenure as NIAID director and roles related to the COVID-19 response.
The year 2014 is significant as it marked a pause on gain-of-function research by the National Institutes of Health, which Fauci allegedly violated. Fauci has been accused of funding such research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Senator Rand Paul has long been a vocal critic, having referred Fauci to the Justice Department for prosecution.
In 2023, Paul stated he had a “smoking gun” linking Fauci to a proposal involving experiments with a COVID-19-like virus in China. A top NIH official later acknowledged funding gain-of-function research under a now-deleted “generic” definition, but not the official regulatory one.
The 10-year scope of Fauci’s pardon has been interpreted as an indication that the Biden administration believes Fauci bears responsibility for the pandemic. Paul, now chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, is determined to uncover the truth by accessing Fauci’s personal communications.
Some suggest that the GOP-controlled Congress should bring Fauci back to testify. Retired Army physician David McCune argues that Fauci’s refusal to admit mistakes will lead to further allegations of perjury. McCune emphasizes the need for accountability in the handling of the pandemic, warning against setting a precedent of immunity for government officials.
Fauci’s pardon coincided with the debarment of EcoHealth Alliance and its former president, Peter Daszak, from federal funding due to biosafety protocol violations. Both challenged the decision, but NIH’s findings were clear.
Alex Berenson, a former New York Times reporter, quipped that the COVID-19 vaccines now seem to grant immunity in a different context, referring to Fauci’s pardon. Berenson has been embroiled in a legal battle over censorship related to his criticism of COVID-19 vaccines.
Berenson’s lawsuit against federal agencies involves attempts to suppress information about vaccine efficacy. He claims that Fauci was involved in efforts to promote mRNA vaccines, while the administration pressured social media companies to censor dissenting voices.
In a recent development, Berenson seeks to amend his lawsuit with insights from an interview with Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who revealed that the Biden administration attempted to suppress accurate information about vaccines. Berenson’s legal journey continues, as he challenges what he sees as a violation of free speech rights.
