Is Fauci's Pardon Legit If His Pardon Was by AutoPen?

Let's play a fun little game of "what does 'sign' actually mean," shall we? Because Dr. Anthony Fauci just spent a Senate hearing invoking the Fifth Amendment 111 times — one hundred and eleven, an Olympic gold medal in constitutional dodging — and buried underneath that spectacle is a question that's far more interesting than anything Fauci actually said, which was, of course, nothing. Was his blanket pardon from Joe Biden even valid in the first place? And if it wasn't, does the Fifth Amendment even apply to a man who might not be pardoned at all?

Here's the setup, delivered with all the drama it deserves. On his way out the door in January 2025, Biden issued Fauci a sweeping pardon covering any federal crime he might have committed going back to 2014, tied to his work running the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and steering the country's COVID response. Convenient timing, wouldn't you say? A decade of blanket coverage, delivered in the final hours, for a man who never stood trial for anything. It's the legal equivalent of buying insurance on a house that's already on fire and getting the claim approved anyway.

Except here's the wrinkle nobody in the mainstream press seems eager to chew on: there's a real, live dispute over whether Biden's autopen pardons — Fauci's very much included — actually count. President Trump and a chorus of House Republicans have argued that Biden's team ran the autopen on a batch of late-term pardons without clear evidence the man himself ever made the call to sign them. Not "did a machine sign it," mind you — that part, on its own, is boringly legal. Presidents from Lincoln forward have had subordinates put ink to paper for them, and a 2005 Justice Department opinion under George W. Bush blessed the practice for legislation, with the logic extending comfortably to pardons. A robot pen isn't the problem. Robots don't get indicted.

The problem, the real one, the one worth actually squinting at, is delegation versus decision. That same 2005 opinion was careful to say the president can direct someone else to move the pen, but he still has to be the one who decided to sign in the first place. An autopen can carry out a president's will. It cannot generate one. So the entire fight over Biden's pardons — Fauci's included — isn't really about the pen at all. It's about whether Joe Biden, in whatever cognitive state he was actually in during those final West Wing weeks, was the man who made the call, or whether a staffer somewhere decided for him and let the machine handle the rest.

Nobody has produced a smoking-gun memo proving Biden was unaware. Nobody has produced one proving he wasn't, either. That's rather the point — and rather delicious, honestly, watching an administration that spent four years demanding total transparency get caught having none to offer about its own final decisions.

Which brings us back to Dr. Fauci, sitting in that Senate hearing room, reaching for the Fifth Amendment 111 times like a man grabbing for the last life raft off a sinking ship, except the ship might not have actually sunk yet, which makes his choice of raft rather premature. If his pardon turns out to be invalid — and several state attorneys general are already sniffing around for state-level exposure a federal pardon couldn't touch anyway — then Fauci doesn't have blanket immunity. He has a very expensive rumor of one. And the Fifth Amendment doesn't protect you from embarrassment or inconvenience. It protects you from genuine, live legal jeopardy. If Fauci genuinely believes he still faces prosecution, fine, that's his right to say so. But it's awfully convenient that a man once so certain of "the science" is now so uncertain about whether his own get-out-of-jail-free card actually clears.

There's real irony in a man who spent years lecturing the country to simply trust the process now needing the process to have quietly malfunctioned in his favor on the way out the door. He wants us to trust that his pardon is airtight while simultaneously acting, under oath, like it might not be. You can't have both. Either the pardon holds and he can answer the Senate's questions with total legal cover, or it doesn't hold and his silence is a tacit admission he knows exactly why he needs it.

Somewhere in the space between those two possibilities sits the truth, and it would be nice, for once, if someone actually made Fauci say it out loud.

Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Townhall's conservative reporting that takes on the radical Left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.

Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.