Biden Pardon Shields Fauci as FDA Chief Unleashes Cover-Up Allegations

Paul Riverbank, 11/27/2025Explosive claims: Fauci accused of COVID cover-up, Biden issues sweeping pardon, trust erodes further.

Talking with reporters, Makary seemed both frustrated and bemused. “Honestly, hardly anyone, not even my old colleagues, would have believed this three years ago,” he said. He thinks Fauci suppressed inconvenient theories about COVID’s origin at a critical moment, particularly the possibility that the outbreak began not in some shadowy wet market, but in a Wuhan laboratory experimenting with viruses.

Some context might help here. As head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Fauci was thrust into the center of early pandemic decision-making. In Makary’s telling, it wasn’t just that Fauci dismissed the lab-leak theory—he allegedly pushed for other scientists to hush it up. There were emails, Makary says, plus last-minute calls, and what he describes as “nudges” to certain virologists who, just days before, had voiced concerns that the virus showed signs of lab manipulation. Suddenly, those same voices helped pen a now-famous article in the journal Nature Medicine, arguing the lab theory was far-fetched. At a pivotal White House briefing, Fauci held up that very article to challenge the idea of a lab origin.

Congress has dug into this as well. The House Oversight Committee, for instance, reviewed correspondence and drafts from those early days. Their findings show that Fauci was not just an observer but actively involved in shaping the Nature Medicine paper, titled “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.” The optics, if nothing else, have become a flashpoint: was this responsible crisis management, or something more self-serving?

Makary’s argument doesn’t stop at communication strategy. He zeroes in on NIH funding, claiming that scientists willing to echo Fauci’s line received generous research grants in the months following publication. “Millions of dollars flowed afterward,” Makary points out, suggesting the feast didn’t go unnoticed on campus. Of course, funding in science can sometimes look suspicious from the outside, even if it isn’t; established experts—those already embedded in networks like Fauci’s—often receive the lion’s share. But Makary draws a straight line, and he’s far from alone in raising eyebrows.

Complicating matters further, President Joe Biden issued Fauci a broad pardon by autopen, effectively covering any federal offense from 2014 through the present. For detractors, the timing only adds fuel to claims of institutional shielding, even though presidential pardons during high-profile scandals are nothing new in Washington.

—And yet, Dr. Fauci himself has pushed back on all these fronts. In previous testimony and interviews, he’s rejected any suggestion that he lied to Congress or to the public, standing by his decisions and the scientific process as it played out in a rapidly evolving crisis. He’s repeatedly pointed to the uncertainty scientists everywhere faced in 2020: “We were learning as we went,” he once said in a House hearing, visibly weary.

But the debate doesn’t just live within the corridors of academia and government. The ripples are felt outside, too. Many of Makary’s colleagues, he admits, were stunned—not so much by the underlying biology, but by revelations about how much went on behind closed doors, and how little trust remains between medical authority figures and the public.

Scrutiny of “gain-of-function” research, a technical term that most people ignored before the pandemic, has become central. Here, researchers intentionally tweak viruses in laboratories, seeking to understand leaps in transmissibility or severity. Makary says that under Fauci’s watch, bureaucratic sleights-of-hand were used to relax rather than tighten oversight of such experiments. To the casual observer, these are dry rules found in journals and government circulars. To the COVID generation, they’re suddenly front-page news.

The fallout of these revelations, if that’s what they are, is a slow erosion of trust—a phrase that comes up often now in public health circles. A few years ago, Americans might have turned to “the experts” without much second-guessing. Now, each new piece of information is parsed, re-examined, and discussed at kitchen tables, on radio call-ins, and yes, in Congressional hearings.

With the pandemic receding in the rearview, these debates only feel more urgent. How much of the official narrative was shaped by science, and how much by politics? Did public officials serve the facts, or did expedience get the better of them? On these questions, clarity remains elusive.

One thing is certain: as the dust settles, the call for transparency only grows. In the end, whatever the answers, Americans expect candor—from their scientists, and their leaders—especially when so much is at stake.

It would be difficult these days to find a figure from the pandemic era who remains as polarizing—depending on whom you ask—as Dr. Anthony Fauci. Only a few years ago, he’d become a household name, the gray-haired scientist offering calm—even if sometimes shifting—answers as COVID-19 swept the country. Yet, in recent weeks, voices within the medical world have turned sharply against him. The latest accusation comes from Dr. Marty Makary, an outspoken surgeon and former Johns Hopkins professor, who isn’t mincing words: “Fauci was involved in a massive cover-up.”Talking with reporters, Makary seemed both frustrated and bemused. “Honestly, hardly anyone, not even my old colleagues, would have believed this three years ago,” he said. He thinks Fauci suppressed inconvenient theories about COVID’s origin at a critical moment, particularly the possibility that the outbreak began not in some shadowy wet market, but in a Wuhan laboratory experimenting with viruses.Some context might help here. As head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Fauci was thrust into the center of early pandemic decision-making. In Makary’s telling, it wasn’t just that Fauci dismissed the lab-leak theory—he allegedly pushed for other scientists to hush it up. There were emails, Makary says, plus last-minute calls, and what he describes as “nudges” to certain virologists who, just days before, had voiced concerns that the virus showed signs of lab manipulation. Suddenly, those same voices helped pen a now-famous article in the journal Nature Medicine, arguing the lab theory was far-fetched. At a pivotal White House briefing, Fauci held up that very article to challenge the idea of a lab origin.Congress has dug into this as well. The House Oversight Committee, for instance, reviewed correspondence and drafts from those early days. Their findings show that Fauci was not just an observer but actively involved in shaping the Nature Medicine paper, titled “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.” The optics, if nothing else, have become a flashpoint: was this responsible crisis management, or something more self-serving?Makary’s argument doesn’t stop at communication strategy. He zeroes in on NIH funding, claiming that scientists willing to echo Fauci’s line received generous research grants in the months following publication. “Millions of dollars flowed afterward,” Makary points out, suggesting the feast didn’t go unnoticed on campus. Of course, funding in science can sometimes look suspicious from the outside, even if it isn’t; established experts—those already embedded in networks like Fauci’s—often receive the lion’s share. But Makary draws a straight line, and he’s far from alone in raising eyebrows.Complicating matters further, President Joe Biden issued Fauci a broad pardon by autopen, effectively covering any federal offense from 2014 through the present. For detractors, the timing only adds fuel to claims of institutional shielding, even though presidential pardons during high-profile scandals are nothing new in Washington.—And yet, Dr. Fauci himself has pushed back on all these fronts. In previous testimony and interviews, he’s rejected any suggestion that he lied to Congress or to the public, standing by his decisions and the scientific process as it played out in a rapidly evolving crisis. He’s repeatedly pointed to the uncertainty scientists everywhere faced in 2020: “We were learning as we went,” he once said in a House hearing, visibly weary.But the debate doesn’t just live within the corridors of academia and government. The ripples are felt outside, too. Many of Makary’s colleagues, he admits, were stunned—not so much by the underlying biology, but by revelations about how much went on behind closed doors, and how little trust remains between medical authority figures and the public.Scrutiny of “gain-of-function” research, a technical term that most people ignored before the pandemic, has become central. Here, researchers intentionally tweak viruses in laboratories, seeking to understand leaps in transmissibility or severity. Makary says that under Fauci’s watch, bureaucratic sleights-of-hand were used to relax rather than tighten oversight of such experiments. To the casual observer, these are dry rules found in journals and government circulars. To the COVID generation, they’re suddenly front-page news.The fallout of these revelations, if that’s what they are, is a slow erosion of trust—a phrase that comes up often now in public health circles. A few years ago, Americans might have turned to “the experts” without much second-guessing. Now, each new piece of information is parsed, re-examined, and discussed at kitchen tables, on radio call-ins, and yes, in Congressional hearings.With the pandemic receding in the rearview, these debates only feel more urgent. How much of the official narrative was shaped by science, and how much by politics? Did public officials serve the facts, or did expedience get the better of them? On these questions, clarity remains elusive.One thing is certain: as the dust settles, the call for transparency only grows. In the end, whatever the answers, Americans expect candor—from their scientists, and their leaders—especially when so much is at stake.