Fauci's Pardon Cannot Protect Him from State Crimes or Civil Lawsuits

Montana could prosecute Fauci for violating state laws on pathogen handling, animal welfare, or transparency during controversial coronavirus experiments at Rocky Mountain Laboratories in 2018.

On January 20, 2025, in an unprecedented move during his final hours in office, President Joe Biden issued a series of preemptive pardons, including one for Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

Follow Jon Fleetwood: Instagram @realjonfleetwood / Twitter @JonMFleetwood / Facebook @realjonfleetwood

---

The most serious allegation against Dr. Fauci during the COVID-19 pandemic is that he funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China, which may have contributed to the creation and subsequent lab leak of the virus, and that he then covered up these actions.

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has called for Dr. Anthony Fauci to be prosecuted and potentially face jail time for allegedly lying to Congress about funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan.

The decision to preemptively pardon Fauci was framed by Biden as a safeguard against potential “revenge” by the incoming Trump administration, which had signaled a desire to investigate or prosecute the former NIAID director.

In his pardon statement, Biden said: “The issuance of these pardons should not be mistaken as an acknowledgment that any individual engaged in any wrongdoing, nor should acceptance be misconstrued as an admission of guilt for any offense.”

While the federal pardon absolves Fauci of any potential federal criminal liability, it does not extend to certain other legal vulnerabilities.

State Crimes Still on the Table

Under the U.S. Constitution, a presidential pardon applies strictly to federal offenses.

The pardon has no bearing on state-level investigations or charges.

This means that any crimes Fauci might be accused of under state law remain prosecutable.

State attorneys general or district attorneys could pursue legal action if evidence suggests state-level violations related to Fauci’s tenure at NIAID.

Fauci remains vulnerable if a state chooses to pursue claims within its jurisdiction.

How Montana Could Prosecute Fauci Under State Law

For example, the state of Montana, home to the Rocky Mountain Laboratories (RML) where controversial coronavirus research took place, could theoretically pursue criminal charges against Dr. Fauci if evidence suggests state laws were violated.

Montana’s attorney general could leverage the following details about experiments conducted under Fauci’s leadership at RML, which may provide grounds for prosecution:

1. Handling of Dangerous Pathogens

In 2018, researchers at RML, overseen by Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), infected 12 Egyptian fruit bats with the WIV1 coronavirus—a SARS-like virus shipped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

This virus, which shares similarities with pathogens linked to the COVID-19 pandemic, was tested on bats acquired from a Maryland zoo known for its history of animal welfare violations.

Montana state law includes strict guidelines for the handling, transport, and experimentation of pathogens, particularly when they pose a risk to public health.

If state investigators determine that the lab’s practices violated Montana’s biohazard or wildlife laws, Fauci could face charges as the NIH official ultimately responsible for overseeing these experiments.

2. Potential Violations of Animal Welfare Laws

The bats used in the 2018 experiment were sourced from a “roadside” Maryland zoo with a history of inadequate animal care.

The experiment involved daily physical exams, invasive sample collections, and euthanasia to analyze organ tissues.

Montana’s animal cruelty statutes protect animals from unnecessary harm, even in research settings.

If state prosecutors determine the research failed to meet Montana’s standards for ethical treatment of animals, they could file charges under these statutes.

3. Inadequate Disclosure of Research Risks

Montana law mandates transparency regarding activities that could pose environmental or public health risks.

The experiments at RML used a coronavirus linked to the Wuhan lab, which the FBI believes caused the COVID-19 pandemic.

State prosecutors could investigate whether Fauci or NIH officials properly disclosed the risks associated with experimenting on SARS-like viruses in Montana.

Follow Jon Fleetwood: Instagram @realjonfleetwood / Twitter @JonMFleetwood / Facebook @realjonfleetwood

---

4. Funding and Collaboration with Wuhan Lab

The 2018 experiment underscores ties between Fauci’s NIH and the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Montana prosecutors could argue that the state became an unwitting participant in federally funded research with potential pandemic implications.

If evidence suggests that Fauci misrepresented the nature of these collaborations or the safety protocols in place, state fraud or misrepresentation laws could come into play.

Implications for Montana’s Case Against Fauci

Montana Congressman Matt Rosendale has already called for accountability, stating, “Our government helped create the Wuhan flu, then shut the country down when it escaped from the lab. Fauci and his cohorts must be held accountable!”

His efforts to strip funding from RML further highlight growing scrutiny of Fauci’s oversight of gain-of-function research.

A state-level prosecution would not be blocked by President Biden’s federal pardon and could serve as a test case for state governments seeking to address perceived federal overreach in controversial pathogen research.

If pursued, it would underscore the ongoing tension between state and federal authorities in managing public health accountability.

Civil Lawsuits

The pardon also provides no immunity from civil litigation.

Private individuals or organizations who allege they were harmed by Fauci’s actions during the COVID-19 pandemic can still bring lawsuits against him.

Civil cases, such as those alleging negligence, harm, or other grievances, remain viable avenues for seeking accountability or damages.

This limitation aligns with legal precedent, where a presidential pardon only removes criminal liability under federal law but does not extinguish civil claims, which are governed by separate legal standards.

Fauci’s Reaction to the Pardon

Dr. Fauci expressed his appreciation for the pardon but maintained his innocence.

“Despite the accomplishments that my colleagues and I achieved over my long career of public service, I have been the subject of politically-motivated threats of investigation and prosecution,” he said.

“There is absolutely no basis for these threats. Let me be perfectly clear: I have committed no crime.”

Potential Legal Challenges Ahead

Critics argue that the pardon, while legally binding at the federal level, leaves unresolved questions about accountability and transparency.

Senator Rand Paul, a frequent critic of Fauci, has vowed to continue pressing for investigations, stating, “If there was ever any doubt as to who bears responsibility for the COVID pandemic, Biden’s pardon of Fauci forever seals the deal.”

“As Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee I will not rest until the entire truth of the coverup is exposed. Fauci’s pardon will only serve as an accelerant to pierce the veil of deception. Ignominious! Anthony Fauci will go down in history as the first government scientist to be preemptively pardoned for a crime.”

For Fauci, the pardon closes one chapter of potential legal jeopardy but leaves open the possibility of state-level charges and civil lawsuits.

As the new administration takes over, the boundaries of the pardon’s implications will likely be tested in legal and political arenas.

Follow Jon Fleetwood: Instagram @realjonfleetwood / Twitter @JonMFleetwood / Facebook @realjonfleetwood

---