Dr. Anthony Fauci Caught — Republicans Hold Up One Piece of Paper That Should Land Him in Jail
WASHINGTON, D.C. — August 14, 2026
Congressional Republicans are intensifying their scrutiny of Dr. Anthony Fauci following the release of his pandemic-era private notes. The documents, published ahead of a contentious Senate hearing, indicate the former infectious disease official privately calculated that the COVID-19 fatality rate was significantly lower than the estimates he provided to the public in 2020.
The documents, characterized by conservative lawmakers as Fauci's "diary," were released by Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. The records offer a rare glimpse into early assessments by the former director.
The controversy centers on a journal entry dated February 8, 2020. Fauci recorded a conversation with former CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden. Fauci noted the experts were "on the same page" in comparing the novel coronavirus's transmissibility to severe influenza, concluding that widespread asymptomatic cases would push the actual case fatality rate lower than initial global reports suggested.
According to the entry, Fauci wrote that the high number of undiagnosed infections made the true case fatality rate "more like 0.2-0.3% rather than 2.0%".
Republicans argue this private assessment starkly contradicts the severe warnings Fauci issued publicly. During a March 2020 congressional hearing, as nationwide closures began, Fauci testified under oath that the stated mortality rate was approximately 3 percent.
“It first started off as two, and now three,” Fauci told lawmakers. While he acknowledged that counting asymptomatic infections would likely bring the rate down to around 1 percent, he firmly emphasized the threat. “This has a mortality of 10 times that [of the seasonal flu]. And that’s the reason why I want to emphasize we have to stay ahead of the game in preventing this.”
He reiterated similar figures during prime-time television appearances, warning audiences the rate was "about two, two and a half percent," before conceding it might settle near 1 percent.
Critics contend the discrepancy between his private calculations of a 0.2 to 0.3 percent fatality rate and his public warnings misled the American public and artificially inflated the justification for unprecedented restrictions.
The disclosure has reignited fierce partisan anger regarding the government's pandemic response. Republican lawmakers expressed outrage over both the conflicting statistics and portions of the diary where Fauci purportedly discussed media appearances and his rising public profile.
Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) issued a scathing rebuke following the release.
“Tony Fauci’s diary shows how he worked with the liberal media to smear me, cover for China, and lie to the American people,” Cotton stated. “Fauci is a lying disgrace who should be prosecuted.”
Fauci’s defenders argue that early pandemic data was highly volatile, noting that public health officials frequently updated their guidance as clinical reporting improved globally. Nonetheless, the newly released documents provide conservative investigators with substantial new material as they continue to demand strict accountability for the federal government's handling of the devastating COVID-19 crisis.
CBS Host LOSES IT After Sen. Kennedy FACT CHECKS Her Trump LIES… THIS GOT BAD!...
CBS Host PRESSES John Kennedy on Trump’s Spending — His Answer Takes an Unexpected Turn
The interview began with some of the biggest questions facing Washington: the conflict with Iran, rising fuel costs, and the approaching midterm elections. But when Republican Senator John Kennedy appeared on Face the Nation with CBS host Margaret Brennan, the conversation quickly moved toward an issue that could shape the political debate for months to come: how the government spends taxpayers’ money.
Kennedy did not pretend that the economic pressure facing American families was insignificant. He argued that voters were far more concerned about the cost of living than the daily battles playing out on television. With oil prices affected by disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz, he said, the consequences of foreign policy were reaching directly into household budgets.
Kennedy Brings the Conversation Back to Affordability
Kennedy’s message to the White House was unusually direct. He predicted that the midterm elections would be close and argued that Republicans needed to keep their attention on the financial concerns of ordinary Americans.
“When moms and dads lie down to sleep at night and can't,” Kennedy told Brennan, they are worried about the cost of living.
He also called for a nationwide address explaining why the United States entered the conflict with Iran, what the administration hoped to achieve, and how it intended to bring the situation to a conclusion.
His position was not a blanket rejection of the administration’s strategy. Kennedy defended continued pressure on Iran while acknowledging the economic consequences of the partially closed strait. He opposed sending American troops into the situation, warning that deploying them could create a new set of problems.
That combination—support for pressure abroad alongside concern about prices at home—set the tone for the rest of the interview.
Nearly $1 Billion in Cuts Sparks a Constitutional Dispute
The conversation became more pointed when Brennan asked about the White House’s decision to cancel nearly $1 billion in previously approved federal funding without congressional consent.
Brennan raised concerns expressed by Senator Susan Collins, the Republican chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, who argued that the move threatened Congress’s constitutional authority over federal spending.
Kennedy disagreed.
“I love Susan like a taco, but she's wrong,” he said before explaining his view that Congress often appropriates money in broad categories, leaving agencies with considerable discretion over how funds are ultimately used.
He then deployed the phrase that would become the interview’s most memorable sound bite: “Spending porn.”
Kennedy used the expression to criticize what he considers wasteful government expenditures, pointing to funding for circumcision programs in Zambia and electric buses in Rwanda. He also argued that Congress should take greater responsibility for identifying and eliminating spending it believes is unnecessary.
But the disagreement was about more than whether particular programs were worthwhile. It raised a larger question: when Congress approves funding, how much authority should the executive branch have to cancel or redirect it?
Kennedy defended the cuts, while Brennan’s question highlighted the legal and constitutional objections. The interview did not resolve that dispute, but it brought the competing arguments into sharp focus.
Then Kennedy Turned the Standard on Trump
The most revealing moment came when Brennan shifted from the proposed cuts to taxpayer-funded advertising.
She asked Kennedy about a government-funded commercial prominently featuring President Donald Trump and praising his leadership. The question echoed earlier controversy surrounding former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, whose department had spent $220 million on a border-security advertising campaign in which she appeared prominently.
Kennedy had previously criticized Noem’s campaign. Now, with Trump featured in another advertisement paid for by the federal government, Brennan asked whether that spending was appropriate.
Kennedy’s response was notable because he explicitly included his own political allies—and himself—in the principle he was defending.
“I don't think any public official, including President Trump or Kristi Noem or John Kennedy, should spend public money on private ads for themselves,” he said.
He acknowledged that the White House viewed the issue differently but argued that public funds should not be used to promote individual politicians. He also suggested that politicians should not have buildings named after them while they are still alive.
That answer complicated any attempt to portray his position as simply a defense of the administration. Kennedy supported the proposed spending cuts, but he also applied his criticism of taxpayer-funded self-promotion to Trump.
The Real Takeaway From the Interview
The exchange was not a shouting match, nor does the published transcript establish that Brennan lost her composure or that Kennedy fact-checked a series of false statements from her. What it does show is a pointed discussion about economic priorities, congressional spending authority, and whether public money should be used to enhance a politician’s image.
Kennedy’s argument was straightforward: families are worried about affordability, government spending deserves scrutiny, and the rules should apply regardless of party.
Whether viewers agree with his assessment of the proposed cuts is a separate question. The legal dispute over executive spending authority and the debate over taxpayer-funded political advertising deserve examination beyond a few memorable television lines.
The moment worth watching is when Brennan moves from criticizing government spending in general to asking Kennedy about an advertisement featuring Trump himself. That is where the discussion becomes more complicated—and where Kennedy’s stated principle is tested against his own party’s leadership.
Watch the full interview through the link below to hear the exchange in context and decide how convincing each side’s argument really was.
