History has a funny way of repeating itself, but the morning of January 20, 2025, felt like something entirely new. Just hours before the clock struck noon and power shifted back to Donald Trump, the White House dropped a bombshell. It wasn't about a new policy or a final speech. It was a preemptive strike.
Joe Biden pardons Fauci, Mark Milley, and a list of others that read like a "who’s who" of the people most likely to end up in a courtroom under the incoming administration.
This wasn't your standard end-of-term mercy for non-violent offenders. It was a calculated, legally aggressive move to shield the face of the U.S. pandemic response from what Biden called "politically motivated threats." People are still arguing about whether this was a noble act of protection or a massive abuse of executive power. Honestly, it depends on who you ask at the local diner.
Why the Joe Biden pardons Fauci move actually happened
For years, Dr. Anthony Fauci was more than just a scientist; he became a symbol. To some, he was the steady hand during the COVID-19 storm. To others, he was the guy who closed their businesses and "sorta just" made up the six-foot rule—a phrase he actually used during his June 2024 House testimony.
The legal reality is that Fauci had been staring down a barrel of potential investigations. House Republicans, led by figures like Senator Rand Paul, had been hammering away at the "gain-of-function" research narrative in Wuhan. They weren't just looking for apologies; they were looking for perjury charges.
Biden saw the writing on the wall. He issued a "full and unconditional" pardon to Fauci, covering everything from January 1, 2014, through January 19, 2025.
👉 See also: How Old Is Celeste Rivas? The Truth Behind the Tragic Timeline
It's a huge window. It covers his entire tenure during the pandemic and years of research oversight before that. Biden’s logic was simple: these public servants shouldn't have their lives ruined by "revenge" politics. But critics say if you haven't done anything wrong, why do you need a pardon?
The weird legal loophole of "preemptive" pardons
Can you even pardon someone who hasn't been charged?
Yes. It’s rare, but it’s real. Think back to Gerald Ford pardoning Richard Nixon. Nixon hadn't been indicted for anything yet, but Ford wanted the "national nightmare" to end. Biden took that playbook and applied it to half a dozen people at once.
The pardon specifically mentions Fauci's roles as:
- Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
- Member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force
- Chief Medical Advisor to the President
Essentially, if it happened while he was working for the government in the last decade, he’s legally "bulletproof" at the federal level.
✨ Don't miss: How Did Black Men Vote in 2024: What Really Happened at the Polls
Fauci himself wasn't exactly jumping for joy in public. He told ABC News, "Let me be perfectly clear: I have committed no crime." He accepted the pardon not as an admission of guilt, but as a way to stop the "immeasurable and intolerable distress" the threats were causing his family. Imagine having a security detail for years because people are mad about masks. That’s the reality he was living.
What this means for the Trump administration
When Trump took the oath of office later that same day, his "enemies list" got a lot shorter. Or at least, the options for legal recourse did.
Trump called the pardons "disgraceful" via text. He argued that many on the list were "guilty of MAJOR CRIMES." But with a signed pardon warrant from the Department of Justice, the new Attorney General’s hands are mostly tied regarding federal charges.
However, there’s a catch.
Pardons only apply to federal crimes. They don't stop civil lawsuits or state-level investigations. If a state AG decided to go after Fauci for something related to state laws, the Biden pardon wouldn't do much. It's also worth noting that accepting a pardon has historically been seen by the Supreme Court (in Burdick v. United States) as carrying a "confession" of guilt.
🔗 Read more: Great Barrington MA Tornado: What Really Happened That Memorial Day
Fauci’s lawyers, David Schertler and Danny Onorato, have spent the last year fighting that perception. They argue that in a hyper-polarized world, a pardon is just "legal armor," not a white flag.
The fallout: Rand Paul and the "coverup" narrative
The reaction from the Hill was exactly what you’d expect. Senator Rand Paul was livid. He posted on X that the pardon "seals the deal" on who is responsible for the pandemic. To the critics, this was the ultimate proof of a coverup.
If there was no fire, why the smoke?
The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic had just released a massive 520-page report. They claimed Fauci’s testimony was "at a minimum, misleading." They were digging into NIH grants and the EcoHealth Alliance. For those investigators, the pardon felt like a door being slammed in their faces just as they were turning the handle.
Actionable insights for the curious
If you're trying to make sense of this legal maze, here’s the bottom line on what happened and what comes next:
- Federal immunity is absolute: Unless the pardon is somehow proven to be fraudulent (which is nearly impossible), Fauci cannot be prosecuted by the feds for his pandemic actions.
- Civil litigation is still on the table: Families or organizations can still try to sue in civil court, though "qualified immunity" for government workers makes that a steep uphill climb.
- Congressional oversight continues: A pardon stops jail time, but it doesn't stop a subpoena. Fauci can still be called to testify, though he might have more leeway to speak freely now that the threat of prosecution is gone.
- Watch the state courts: Keep an eye on conservative-leaning State Attorneys General. They may look for creative ways to bypass the federal pardon if they can find a state-level hook.
The Joe Biden pardons Fauci saga is basically a case study in the "preemptive strike" era of American politics. It’s a messy, complicated, and deeply personal end to a career that spanned seven presidencies. Whether it saved a public servant from a witch hunt or let a "bureaucrat" off the hook is a question that will likely be debated in history books for the next fifty years.