Paul Threatens Fauci for Pleading 5th in Hearing, Removes Fauci’s Attorney
Republican lawmakers are intensifying calls for greater scrutiny of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s pandemic-era decisions and public statements.
Fauci refused to answer questions from members of a Senate committee at a hearing on Wednesday about his actions as the government’s top infectious disease expert during the COVID pandemic.
Committee Chairman Sen. Rand Paul lit into Fauci to begin the hearing and threatened “repercussions” for Fauci for invoking his 5th Amendment right to refuse to answer questions.
“Dr. Fauci, would you like to at least answer this one question for us today and let us know whether or not you’ve changed your mind on whether or not the benefits of gain-of-function research outweigh the risks?” Rand asked.
“On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer, based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution,” Fauci replied.
“The chairman has denied your assertion of privilege and directed you to answer, but you nonetheless refuse and stand on privilege despite the existence of the pardon,” Paul shot back.
Paul declared: “The committee will have to consider, after this hearing, what appropriate action should be taken against you for the failure to testify after being directed to do so. It’s against the law to obstruct an investigation of Congress. There will be repercussions to your refusal to testify today.”
Paul has long argued that Fauci should see prison time, alleging he lied to Congress as far back as 2021.
“It’s a felony punishable by five years in jail,” Paul told Fox News host Sean Hannity in September of 2021.
“I don’t think Biden Department of Justice will do anything with it, but … it is very dangerous to have public officials who we need to have trust in coming and lying to us. But he has lied dozens of times. Usually he tells us it’s for our own good,” Paul said.
Things also got heated when Paul removed one of Fauci’s lawyers from the hearing after the lawyer repeatedly talked over Paul to defend Fauci, even though he had not been invited to speak.
“You will respect these proceedings. You were told not to sit at the table. You insist on sitting at the table. And we told you you would not be recognized. You are not invited here for testimony, sir. You are being disruptive,” Paul declared.
“Would you behave this way in a courtroom? No, because the judge would put you in jail. I can’t do that today, but I can have you escorted from the premises,” Paul added.
“So I would say, sir, sit quietly and don’t say another word. I said sit quietly. You are not recognized. Another word and you’re gone,” Paul declared.
After another back-and-forth and the attorney’s refusal to listen, Paul then had security remove him from the room.\
Before the hearing, President Donald Trump lashed out at Fauci.
“‘Operation Warp Speed’ was a SPECTACULAR SUCCESS, in fact, many say, one of the most successful things ever done by an American President. I overrode Fauci on this. His ideas were CRAZY,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Wednesday.
“I Inherited Fauci, who was there since the 1980’s, but with each passing day, relied less and less on him. He made too many bad calls, like on MASKS. Remember at the beginning he was an anti-masker. He then switched to a super-masker. In any event I didn’t let him shut the Country down, although he wanted to,” Trump continued.
Democrats Gerrymandered California — and Their Candidate Still Tied in a District They Engineered To Win
California’s independent redistricting commission — which turned out to be neither independent nor particularly interested in fair maps — redrew the state’s congressional districts specifically to maximize Democratic advantage heading into 2026. It was one of the most aggressive gerrymanders in the country. And a Democrat in a district built for Democrats just released an internal poll showing her up by two points.
Two points. In a district she was supposed to win comfortably. In California.
Marni von Wilpert’s campaign released an internal poll showing her leading Republican Jim Desmond 48-46 in California’s 48th Congressional District — a seat she is supposed to hold easily based on the partisan composition Democrats engineered into the map. An internal poll is typically released when it contains your best news. This is von Wilpert’s best news. She’s up two in territory her party drew specifically for her to win.
Cameron Arcand captured the situation perfectly: “Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t this one of the redrawn districts meant to favor Dems?”
It was. That’s the entire point. When a party gerrymanders a map and then runs internal polls showing near-ties in seats they engineered for themselves, something has gone catastrophically wrong with the underlying political environment. The map didn’t change. The voters did.
This is not an isolated data point. The pattern repeats across every competitive House race where Democrats have released internal polling. Their own numbers — the ones they commission from their own pollsters and release only when they believe they contain favorable information — are showing races that should be locks as toss-ups and races that should be toss-ups as lost causes.
The YouGov generic ballot that coincides with this polling is equally revealing. Democrats lead Republicans 46-42 — a four-point advantage in a poll with a D+7.5 sample. When you weight a poll seven and a half points in the Democratic direction and still only produce a four-point lead, the underlying electorate is telling you something important that the weighting is trying to obscure.
Virginia’s 2nd Congressional District delivers the same message. Elaine Luria is tied at 47-47 with incumbent Republican Jen Kiggans — a district Democrats identified as one of their strongest pickup opportunities on the map. When voters learned more about both candidates, Luria moved to 48-46. Still a tie. Still nowhere near what Democrats need in a race they designated as a priority.
The math is unforgiving. Democrats need to win the national popular vote by three to four points just to flip the House, due to how districts are drawn nationwide. They’re currently at D+4 in the best-weighted polls and D+3 in the most honest ones. They’re tied in seats built for them in their own states. Their internal polls are the optimistic version of reality.
The wave isn’t coming. Not at D+4 in a D+7.5 poll. Not at tied races in gerrymandered seats.
The numbers know it. Republican candidates in those districts should act accordingly.
House Passes Bill to Reauthorize Terrorism Risk Insurance Program
The House of Representatives passed legislation to extend the federal Terrorism Risk Insurance Program through 2034, delivering a strong bipartisan vote in favor of maintaining stability in the commercial insurance market.
Lawmakers approved H.R. 7128, the TRIA Program Reauthorization Act of 2026, by a vote of 373-15.
The measure, sponsored by Rep. Mike Flood, R-Neb., chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance, now heads to the Senate.
The program provides a federal backstop for property and casualty insurers facing catastrophic losses from certified acts of terrorism, having been created by Congress in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Under the existing framework, private insurers must make terrorism coverage available to policyholders, while the Treasury Department shares in losses above certain thresholds once a certified event occurs.
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Rep. French Hill, R-Ark., emphasized the program’s core purpose during floor debate.
“The purpose of TRIA is spelled out in the original law,” Hill said.
“The law states that TRIA is designed to provide for a transparent system of shared public and private compensation for insured losses resulting from acts of terrorism in order to protect consumers. That’s the goal here: to give policyholders access to the financial protection they need and the confidence they need to build skyscrapers, sports venues, and malls, and employ workers that drive our economy,” Hill added.
Rep. Mike Flood, the bill’s lead sponsor, highlighted the need for updates alongside the extension.
“This legislation would reauthorize TRIA, the program established by Congress in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, through 2034,” Flood said.
“We are so fortunate that we have never seen a TRIA claim in the program’s entire history, and I hope that we never, ever see one. However, if this program is going to continue to exist with a public backstop, we should ensure we update its charter to protect taxpayers in the event of future claims, and we should work to ensure the certification process is transparent,” Flood added.
The bill extends the program’s authorization for seven additional years beyond its current expiration at the end of 2027.
It also raises the threshold for certifying an act of terrorism for program purposes — increasing the minimum insured losses required from $5 million to $10 million beginning in 2029.
Additionally, the legislation provides explicit statutory authority for the Treasury Department to issue public notifications regarding its process for determining whether an event qualifies as terrorism under the program.
TRIA operates as a public-private partnership.
Insurers retain responsibility for initial losses, with the federal government stepping in only for exceptionally large events that exceed defined retention levels.
No claims have ever been paid out under the program since its inception, a point frequently cited by supporters as evidence of its role in deterring market disruptions rather than serving as a frequent payout mechanism.
Business and industry groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Bankers Association, have backed the reauthorization.
They argue that predictable terrorism coverage supports lending for commercial real estate projects, construction activity, and the operation of large venues and infrastructure that form key parts of the national economy.
Without reauthorization, analysts have warned of potential pullbacks by insurers in offering terrorism coverage, which could raise costs or limit availability for businesses in major metropolitan areas and high-profile sites.
Supporters of the legislation have framed the updates as prudent adjustments that strengthen taxpayer safeguards while preserving the program’s core function.
Raising the certification threshold, for instance, means federal involvement would require a higher bar of insured losses, reducing the likelihood of smaller events triggering government participation.
May you like
This sector supports millions of jobs in construction, property management, retail, hospitality, and related industries across the country.
The bill now advances to the Senate, where a companion measure has also been introduced.
