Today, America First Legal (AFL) has formally requested that the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and the Office of the Special Counsel (OSC) initiate investigations into the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) and Dr. Anthony Fauci for allegedly violating federal laws pertaining to the use of personal emails for official government business. This move comes amidst growing concerns about transparency and accountability within federal agencies.

Background and Allegations

AFL’s request centers around the alleged use of personal email addresses by Dr. Fauci and Dr. David Morens, Fauci’s senior advisor, to conduct official NIAID business. According to AFL, these actions potentially violate the Federal Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which mandate the preservation and disclosure of government records.

In May, AFL demanded an extensive investigation into Dr. Morens, accusing him of attempting to evade FOIA requests by using a personal email account for official communications. The allegations suggest that this practice might have included other senior NIAID officials, potentially implicating Dr. Fauci in a broader scheme to circumvent federal transparency laws.

Investigative Authorities and Jurisdiction

The OSC has the authority to investigate the arbitrary and capricious withholding of information by NIAID, while the HHS OIG is tasked with probing violations of the Federal Records Act by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The HHS OIG is also required to report evidence of such violations to the Attorney General promptly. AFL asserts that these alleged violations warrant immediate and thorough investigation to uphold the principles of government accountability.

Statement from America First Legal

Dan Epstein, Vice President of America First Legal, emphasized the importance of these investigations in a statement:

“AFL’s requests supplement the Oversight Committee’s work and help determine whether Dr. Fauci evaded government transparency and records preservation requirements. The numerous examples of FOIA and records law violations by the current administration would be merely regrettable but for the woeful irony of lawfare against the former President for alleged records violations. Accountability and fairness are therefore key,” Epstein stated.

Implications and Next Steps

The demand for investigations into Dr. Fauci and NIAID raises critical questions about adherence to federal transparency and record-keeping laws within government agencies. If proven, these allegations could have significant implications for the integrity of federal processes and the enforcement of laws designed to ensure public access to government information.

AFL’s actions underscore the ongoing scrutiny of federal officials and the importance of maintaining rigorous standards of transparency and accountability. As the OIG and OSC consider AFL’s requests, the outcomes of these potential investigations could set important precedents for how federal records and information are managed in the future.

In an era where government transparency is paramount, the resolution of these allegations will be closely watched by both proponents and critics of current federal practices. Dr. Fauci, a prominent figure throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, now faces intensified scrutiny as these investigations unfold.

Read the OSC letter here and the OIG letter here.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, a key adviser to two presidential administrations during the COVID-19 pandemic, has reversed his stance on school closures, admitting in a recent interview that keeping schools closed for more than a year was a “mistake.” This acknowledgment comes as a significant shift from his earlier position, where he defended the extended closures despite increasing criticism.

In a Tuesday interview with “CBS Mornings” co-host Tony Dokoupil, Fauci reflected on the impact of the prolonged school closures. “Keeping it for a year was not a good idea,” the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) conceded while promoting his new memoir, “On Call: A Doctor’s Journey in Public Service.”

When asked directly by Dokoupil if the prolonged closure was a mistake and something to avoid in the future, Fauci responded, “Absolutely, yeah.”

Throughout the pandemic, Fauci had maintained that the initial decision to close schools was necessary to control the spread of the virus. In sworn congressional testimony and various media appearances, he supported the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines that led to school closures, arguing they were based on the broader community’s infection rates.

During the summer of 2020, Fauci clashed with former President Donald Trump over reopening schools. Trump criticized the CDC’s stringent guidelines, calling them impractical, while Fauci emphasized the importance of controlling the virus’s spread before safely reopening schools.

By September 2020, some schools that reopened reported less than 1% of COVID-19 cases, according to Brown University’s National COVID-19 School Response Data Dashboard. A CDC study in January 2021 found “little evidence that schools have contributed meaningfully to increased community transmission,” which further fueled the debate on the necessity of prolonged school closures.

Despite this emerging data, many schools remained closed due to pressure from powerful teachers’ unions and ongoing concerns about community transmission rates. Fauci, at the time, continued to stress caution and the importance of low transmission rates before resuming in-person learning.

The prolonged closures had significant impacts on students’ education and well-being. In September 2022, the US Department of Education released statistics showing reading scores among nine-year-olds had plummeted to their lowest point in 30 years, while math scores fell for the first time ever in a half-century of tracking.

In an October 2022 interview with ABC News, Fauci avoided labeling the extended closures as a “mistake,” cautioning against taking his comments out of context. However, he acknowledged the “deleterious collateral consequences” of such measures.

In his recent CBS interview, Fauci maintained that the initial closures were correct but reiterated that keeping them for a prolonged period was not advisable. “I kept on saying, ‘Close the bars, open the schools, open the schools as quickly and as safely as you possibly can,’” Fauci recalled. He emphasized the importance of acting swiftly and safely to reopen schools to minimize harm to students.

A spokesperson for the House COVID subcommittee majority echoed this sentiment, stating, “The ‘science’ promoted by teachers’ unions and public health officials never justified prolonged school closures. Safely returning our children to school as soon as possible should have been the top priority.”

Dr. Fauci’s recent acknowledgment marks a significant shift in the narrative surrounding school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic. As the nation reflects on the lessons learned, it is crucial to ensure that future public health responses balance safety with the well-being and educational needs of students.

Today’s Senate hearing witnessed a heated debate among scientists over the origins of COVID-19, with one expert asserting there is “zero” secure evidence supporting a natural origin of the virus that caused a global pandemic claiming millions of lives.

Dr. Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist from Rutgers University, made a compelling case before the Senate Homeland Security Committee, arguing that “the large preponderance of evidence indicates SARS-CoV-2 entered humans through a research incident.” His stance was reinforced by Dr. Stephen Quay, a former Stanford University School of Medicine professor, who concurred that the probability of a natural origin based on available features is “one in a million.”

COVID-19 first emerged in Wuhan, China, a significant distance from any natural habitats of bats known to carry SARS-like viruses. Ebright pointed out that during the years leading up to the pandemic, the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) engaged in extensive research on bat coronaviruses, funded in part by U.S. grants. This research included experiments with genetically modified viruses closely resembling SARS-CoV-2.

Ebright highlighted that these activities were conducted under the auspices of gain-of-function research, intended to enhance the transmissibility and virulence of viruses, despite denials from EcoHealth Alliance, the U.S.-based organization that collaborated with WIV.

In contrast, Dr. Robert Garry, a professor from Tulane University School of Medicine, defended the natural spillover theory, suggesting COVID-19 likely originated from a seafood market in Wuhan. However, he conceded uncertainties regarding the virus’s presence at WIV and the absence of definitive evidence from Chinese authorities.

Gregory Koblentz, an associate professor from George Mason University, emphasized the divided stance within the U.S. intelligence community on COVID-19 origins. He clarified that while the theory of intentional biological weapon development has been uniformly dismissed, consensus on the virus’s origins remains elusive.

The bipartisan Senate committee, led by Senators Gary Peters (D-Mich.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.), underscored the importance of scientifically assessing available evidence amid potential information gaps from the Chinese government. Sen. Paul criticized federal agencies for withholding crucial documents related to gain-of-function research, underscoring ongoing transparency concerns.

The hearing, marking a rare bipartisan effort, aimed to scrutinize the scientific basis for understanding COVID-19’s genesis and prepare for future pandemics with greater clarity and transparency.

Conclusion

As the debate over COVID-19’s origins continues to unfold, the testimony from experts reveals deep-seated divisions within the scientific community and underscores the critical need for unbiased investigation and transparency in global health crises.

Filed under: Bipartisanship

This article presents a balanced overview of the recent Senate hearing, focusing on contrasting viewpoints regarding the origins of COVID-19 without endorsing any specific theory.