Connect with us

Politics

Opinion: House Republicans would rather demonize Anthony Fauci than help Americans survive the next pandemic

Published

on

Opinion: House Republicans would rather demonize Anthony Fauci than help Americans survive the next pandemic

It has become as tiresome as it is predictable: When Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia turns on her microphone during a hearing, it’s time to say goodbye to decorum and hello to vulgar personal attacks.

The House’s clown princess had quite the forum on Monday, when, as a member of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, she got to grill and insult Dr. Anthony Fauci, 83, one of the world’s leading public health physicians, who headed the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from 1984 until 2022 and steered the country through the pandemic.

Opinion Columnist

Robin Abcarian

Advertisement

Ostensibly, the grilling, which was billed simply as “A Hearing with Anthony Fauci,” was the culmination of the committee’s 15-month inquiry into the origins of the virus and the public health response.

In reality, it was a forum for Republicans to continue their attacks on Fauci. As the committee’s ranking Democratic member, Rep. Raul Ruiz of Indio, put it in a news conference before the hearing, Republicans have used the committee to advance the “dangerous narrative that Dr. Fauci somehow funded research that started the COVID-19 pandemic, lied about it and orchestrated a campaign to cover it up.”

The truth, as we know, is that then-President Trump dithered, blathered and showboated as Americans were dying. Who will ever forget the pained look on the face of Dr. Deborah Birx, Trump’s coronavirus response coordinator, as she watched Trump suggest we “hit the body” with a powerful light or disinfectant to kill the virus? Or the way Fauci face-palmed when Trump went off on a tangent about the “deep State Department” during one of his inane daily briefings?

Monday’s hearing was a colossal waste of time and energy. We are no closer to learning conclusively about the origin of COVID-19, nor steps the government can take to strengthen data collection, improve future testing and contact tracing, or address the racial and wealth disparities that were laid bare in that terrible time.

Advertisement

Instead, Republicans, desperate to tarnish Fauci, went to town. Greene took things to absurd lengths.

“You’re not a doctor,” she fumed. “You’re Mr. Fauci,” she said, her voice dripping with disdain.

Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland called for a point of order. “In terms of the rules of decorum, are we allowed to deny that a doctor is a doctor just because we don’t want him to be a doctor?”

Without waiting for a reply from committee Chairman Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), Greene thundered on, “Yes, because … that man does not deserve to have a license. As a matter of fact, it should be revoked and he belongs in prison.”

Greene took a kitchen-sink approach to her hectoring. Holding up a photo of two beagles lying on the ground with their heads tented in mesh, Greene sneered, “As a dog lover, I want to tell you this is disgusting and evil, what you signed off on. The type of science that you are representing, Mr. Fauci, is abhorrent and it needs to stop.”

Advertisement

(The National Institutes of Health, which has funded research using beagles and has rigorous rules about their treatment, was not involved in the study that Greene was exercised about. The journal that initially promulgated that claim later retracted it.)

“What do dogs have to do with anything we’re talking about today?” asked Fauci in frustration.

Amid the blustering, it’s important to remember that during the pandemic, as President Trump and his sycophants were suggesting that Americans do dumb things like inject bleach or ingest anti-parasitics to rid themselves of COVID-19, Fauci was working to understand the novel virus and to promote social rules designed to help prevent transmission.

Did he make mistakes or contradict himself? He did. In the early stages of the pandemic, Fauci suggested that people didn’t need to wear masks before reversing himself. As he testified, the six-feet-apart rule for social distancing was not based on scientific studies but seemed to make sense.

The editor of the nonpartisan journal the New Atlantis pointed out in a 2022 New York Times essay that a little humility would have served Fauci and the country better. “There was ‌nothing stopping Dr. Fauci in those chaotic early weeks from saying ‘Masks might help, but doctors and nurses need them more now,’ or even just ‘We’re not sure yet,’ ” wrote Ari Schulman. “This would have been far closer to accurately representing scientific understanding and would have done wonders in case the answer later changed, as many elements of guidance were bound to.”

Advertisement

Most of us are willing to cut Fauci some slack for the imperfections, but his embrace of masks, social distancing and, of course, vaccines when they became available made him a figure of hatred for those Americans who do not like being told what to do, especially by scientists. “Don’t Fauci my Florida” became Gov. Ron DeSantis’ ludicrous motto, even as hospitalizations, new infections and deaths per capita soared in his state.

On Monday, Fauci testified that he and his family have been inundated with death threats, two of which were credible enough to have resulted in arrests. “‘Credible death threats’ means someone who clearly was on his way to kill me,” Fauci said at one point, his voice breaking.

You have to wonder why Fauci even volunteered to appear at Monday’s hearing knowing what was in store for him from committee Republicans, who had promised to blow the lid off his mismanagement of the pandemic, but came up with nothing.

“You are an American hero,” said Rep. Robert Garcia, a Long Beach Democrat who lost his mother and stepfather to COVID-19, “and your team has done more to save lives than all 435 members of this body.”

Amen to that.

Advertisement

@robinkabcarian

Politics

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

Published

on

Trump signs order to protect Venezuela oil revenue held in US accounts

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order blocking U.S. courts from seizing Venezuelan oil revenues held in American Treasury accounts.

The order states that court action against the funds would undermine U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

President Donald Trump is pictured signing two executive orders on Sept. 19, 2025, establishing the “Trump Gold Card” and introducing a $100,000 fee for H-1B visas. He signed another executive order recently protecting oil revenue. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Advertisement

Trump signed the order on Friday, the same day that he met with nearly two dozen top oil and gas executives at the White House. 

The president said American energy companies will invest $100 billion to rebuild Venezuela’s “rotting” oil infrastructure and push production to record levels following the capture of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.

The U.S. has moved aggressively to take control of Venezuela’s oil future following the collapse of the Maduro regime.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

Published

on

Column: Some leaders will do anything to cling to positions of power

One of the most important political stories in American history — one that is particularly germane to our current, tumultuous time — unfolded in Los Angeles some 65 years ago.

Sen. John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, had just received his party’s nomination for president and in turn he shunned the desires of his most liberal supporters by choosing a conservative out of Texas as his running mate. He did so in large part to address concerns that his faith would somehow usurp his oath to uphold the Constitution. The last time the Democrats nominated a Catholic — New York Gov. Al Smith in 1928 — he lost in a landslide, so folks were more than a little jittery about Kennedy’s chances.

“I am fully aware of the fact that the Democratic Party, by nominating someone of my faith, has taken on what many regard as a new and hazardous risk,” Kennedy told the crowd at the Memorial Coliseum. “But I look at it this way: The Democratic Party has once again placed its confidence in the American people, and in their ability to render a free, fair judgment.”

The most important part of the story is what happened before Kennedy gave that acceptance speech.

While his faith made party leaders nervous, they were downright afraid of the impact a civil rights protest during the Democratic National Convention could have on November’s election. This was 1960. The year began with Black college students challenging segregation with lunch counter sit-ins across the Deep South, and by spring the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee had formed. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was not the organizer of the protest at the convention, but he planned to be there, guaranteeing media attention. To try to prevent this whole scene, the most powerful Black man in Congress was sent to stop him.

Advertisement

The Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. was also a warrior for civil rights, but the House representative preferred the legislative approach, where backroom deals were quietly made and his power most concentrated. He and King wanted the same things for Black people. But Powell — who was first elected to Congress in 1944, the same year King enrolled at Morehouse College at the age of 15 — was threatened by the younger man’s growing influence. He was also concerned that his inability to stop the protest at the convention would harm his chance to become chairman of a House committee.

And so Powell — the son of a preacher, and himself a Baptist preacher in Harlem — told King that if he didn’t cancel, Powell would tell journalists a lie that King was having a homosexual affair with his mentor, Bayard Rustin. King stuck to his plan and led a protest — even though such a rumor would not only have harmed King, but also would have undermined the credibility of the entire civil rights movement. Remember, this was 1960. Before the March on Washington, before passage of the Voting Rights Act, before the dismantling of the very Jim Crow laws Powell had vowed to dismantle when first running for office.

That threat, my friends, is the most important part of the story.

It’s not that Powell didn’t want the best for the country. It’s just that he wanted to be seen as the one doing it and was willing to derail the good stemming from the civil rights movement to secure his own place in power. There have always been people willing to make such trade-offs. Sometimes they dress up their intentions with scriptures to make it more palatable; other times they play on our darkest fears. They do not care how many people get hurt in the process, even if it’s the same people they profess to care for.

That was true in Los Angeles in 1960.

Advertisement

That was true in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021.

That is true in the streets of America today.

Whether we are talking about an older pastor who is threatened by the growing influence of a younger voice or a president clinging to office after losing an election: To remain king, some men are willing to burn the entire kingdom down.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

Published

on

Federal judge blocks Trump from cutting childcare funds to Democratic states over fraud concerns

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal judge Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from stopping subsidies on childcare programs in five states, including Minnesota, amid allegations of fraud.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, a Biden appointee, didn’t rule on the legality of the funding freeze, but said the states had met the legal threshold to maintain the “status quo” on funding for at least two weeks while arguments continue.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns.

The programs include the Child Care and Development Fund, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and the Social Services Block Grant, all of which help needy families.

Advertisement

USDA IMMEDIATELY SUSPENDS ALL FEDERAL FUNDING TO MINNESOTA AMID FRAUD INVESTIGATION 

On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it would withhold funds for programs in five Democratic states over fraud concerns. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File)

“Families who rely on childcare and family assistance programs deserve confidence that these resources are used lawfully and for their intended purpose,” HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill said in a statement on Tuesday.

The states, which include California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York, argued in court filings that the federal government didn’t have the legal right to end the funds and that the new policy is creating “operational chaos” in the states.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian at his nomination hearing in 2022.  (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Advertisement

In total, the states said they receive more than $10 billion in federal funding for the programs. 

HHS said it had “reason to believe” that the programs were offering funds to people in the country illegally.

‘TIP OF THE ICEBERG’: SENATE REPUBLICANS PRESS GOV WALZ OVER MINNESOTA FRAUD SCANDAL

The table above shows the five states and their social safety net funding for various programs which are being withheld by the Trump administration over allegations of fraud.  (AP Digital Embed)

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.”

Advertisement

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, called the ruling a “critical victory for families whose lives have been upended by this administration’s cruelty.” (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News Digital has reached out to HHS for comment.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending