WATCH: Dr. Fauci Refuses To Answer What Day Of The Week It Is, The Color of His Tie, or the Color of The Carpet

Senator Josh Hawley decided to find out just how far Dr. Anthony Fauci was prepared to take his refusal to answer questions before Congress.

The Missouri Republican did not begin with gain-of-function research, the origins of COVID-19, federal grants, or the decisions that upended American life.

He started with the calendar.

“Let’s try something,” Hawley said. “What day of the week is it today?”

Fauci would not answer.

“On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution,” he replied.

Hawley tried again: “What color tie are you wearing?”

Same response.

Then came the carpet.

Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment a third time.

Watch the extraordinary exchange:

That short sequence captured the bizarre reality of Wednesday’s Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing.

Fauci had announced at the outset that he would invoke his constitutional right against self-incrimination. His attorneys advised him not to answer, and he followed that advice even when Hawley deliberately stripped every controversy out of the question.

No one could plausibly mistake the day of the week or the color of a carpet for a substantive inquiry into pandemic policy. That was Hawley’s point.

The senator was demonstrating that Fauci’s position was not limited to carefully selected questions that might expose him to legal jeopardy. It was a blanket refusal to engage.

Hawley posted the exchange himself after the hearing:

Why Fauci Took The Fifth

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee convened the July 29 hearing with Fauci as its sole listed witness. Committee Chairman Rand Paul had subpoenaed the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases after years of disputes over COVID-19’s origins, federal funding connected to research in China, and Fauci’s prior statements to Congress.

Fauci used his opening statement to accuse Paul of pursuing a campaign designed to put him behind bars. He said the chairman wanted him to say something—anything—that could support repeated calls for his prosecution.

“Although it pains me to do so,” Fauci said, he would follow his attorneys’ advice and refrain from answering questions under the Fifth Amendment.

The Associated Press reported that Fauci’s decision came after he was compelled to appear under Paul’s subpoena. The hearing returned to years of accusations from Paul and other Republicans concerning pandemic origins and Fauci’s handling of federal research policy—claims Fauci has repeatedly denied.

Fauci left federal service in 2022 after serving as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and as a chief medical adviser during the pandemic. Paul has continued investigating whether federal money supported risky coronavirus research in China and whether Fauci’s earlier descriptions of that funding were accurate.

The AP also noted that Fauci received a broad federal pardon from former President Joe Biden covering conduct dating back to 2014. Fauci’s critics have argued that new statements under oath could still create new legal exposure, which formed part of the backdrop to his attorneys’ advice Wednesday.

Invoking the Fifth Amendment is a constitutional right. It is not, by itself, proof that a witness committed a crime.

Wednesday’s hearing did not produce criminal charges or a conviction against Fauci.

The constitutional protection still produced an astonishing political spectacle.

ADVERTISEMENT

Hawley Turned Silence Into The Story

Once Fauci made clear that every substantive question would receive the same scripted answer, senators faced an unusual problem: The long-awaited witness was physically present, but the hearing could produce no testimony from him.

Hawley’s basic questions exposed that stalemate more effectively than another ten-minute recitation of disputed emails or grant records could have.

Fauci would not identify Wednesday as Wednesday. He would not describe the tie visible around his neck.

He would not say what color carpet lay in front of him.

After those refusals, Hawley moved into a lengthy series of allegations about Fauci’s government service. The answers did not change.

According to the AP’s live account of the hearing, Hawley responded to the repeated invocations by declaring, “Well, nothing says honesty like taking the Fifth, huh, doc?” He later argued that Fauci’s silence should be viewed as an admission.

Hawley then moved through allegations involving Fauci’s government role, while Fauci continued delivering the same Fifth Amendment response. Paul followed a similar course, laying out his own account of NIH funding, research conducted in China, virus mutations, and experiments he characterized as dangerous.

With Fauci declining to provide substantive testimony, the senators’ assertions went largely unanswered in the room. The result was a one-sided hearing in which lawmakers could build their case publicly, while the subpoenaed witness relied on his constitutional protection rather than contesting their account point by point.

Legally, that last claim goes too far. A person’s decision to invoke the Fifth Amendment cannot simply be converted into proof of guilt.

Politically, however, Fauci’s total silence left senators free to place their accusations into the record without receiving a rebuttal under questioning.

A Hearing With Questions But No Answers

Axios reported that Paul questioned Fauci about research the senator says the federal government funded in China, along with experiments Paul described as dangerous gain-of-function work. Fauci had disputed those accusations in earlier appearances, but he did not provide fresh answers Wednesday or directly contest Paul’s account.

The hearing did not prove every accusation made against Fauci.

It showed that the man at the center of them had decided not to answer.

Fauci and his attorneys can argue that his refusal was the only prudent response to lawmakers who openly want him prosecuted. Paul, Hawley, and other critics can argue that the public deserved direct answers from a former official who exercised enormous influence during the pandemic.

Axios also reported Fauci’s claim that Paul was attempting to draw out a statement that could place him in legal jeopardy. Paul responded that there would be repercussions for refusing to testify, leaving the committee to consider what steps might follow the hearing.

What cannot be disputed is what Americans saw.

A United States senator asked one of the most consequential public-health officials in modern history what day it was, what color tie he had on, and what color carpet was in front of him.

Fauci would not answer any of them.