1 Trending: Fauci Toadies Privately Called Lab Leak Theory ‘Highly Likely’ While Publicly Shutting It Down

2 Trending: Don’t Let Graham Platner’s Replacement Fool You. He’s Still A Crazy Leftist

3 Trending: Los Angeles Leaders Fail At Everything, And You’ll Never Guess Who They Blame

4 Trending: Fake Outrage Over Trump’s Jokes At The Worthless Correspondents’ Dinner Is Pathetic And Meaningless

10 Questions For Congress To Ask Fauci About His Covid Corruption And Coverup

When Fauci appears before the Senate on Wednesday, he should not be permitted to deflect with bureaucratic theater, selective memory, and semantic evasion.

Share Article on Facebook

Share Article on Twitter

Share Article on Truth Social

Share Article via Email

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?

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:........

© The Federalist