Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R) has officially referred Dr. Anthony Fauci to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for a potential criminal investigation related to the legality of a last-minute presidential pardon.
The pardon was reportedly signed using an autopen—a device that replicates a person’s signature—during former President Joe Biden’s final hours in office, sparking debate over whether proper procedures were followed.
According to a New York Times report, then-White House Chief of Staff Jeff Zients approved the use of the autopen to sign a broad list of pardons on Jan. 19, Biden’s last full day as president.
Among the individuals pardoned were Dr. Fauci and former Rep. Liz Cheney (R–WY), both controversial figures in recent political discourse.
The report states that while Biden approved the general criteria for these pardons, he did not personally sign each document.
Paul has raised serious concerns about the use of the autopen in this context, asserting it may represent criminal misconduct.
“If President Biden did not personally approve or sign Dr. Fauci’s pardon, it may be invalid and legally problematic,” Paul said in the referral sent to Attorney General Pam Bondi.
He urged the DOJ to investigate whether the use of the autopen violated statutory or constitutional requirements for executive clemency.
The issue has reignited criticism from President Donald Trump, who has long criticized Fauci’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Trump called on Republicans to examine the validity of all autopen-issued pardons and questioned whether Congress should establish clearer limits on presidential delegation regarding clemency decisions.
Historically, autopens have been employed by presidents for routine tasks such as signing ceremonial letters or messages of condolence.
However, as Trending Politics noted, the use of an autopen to execute presidential pardons—especially those involving politically sensitive figures—is unusual and potentially unprecedented.
While federal law does not explicitly prohibit autopen use for pardons, critics argue this practice may conflict with the constitutional expectation that the president personally grants clemency.
Fauci has publicly acknowledged receiving the pardon, emphasizing that he “committed no crime.”
He described the pardon as a precautionary measure to protect against possible politically motivated litigation.
Fauci has not commented on the method by which his pardon was signed.
In a follow-up interview with The Times, Biden admitted he did not personally review every individual pardon.
He clarified that his lack of direct involvement applied mainly to routine criminal cases, not the high-profile pardons that have drawn significant public scrutiny.
Meanwhile, the House Oversight Committee, led by Rep. James Comer (R–KY), has opened an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the pardons.
The committee is actively seeking internal communications and records from the Biden administration’s final days to assess the extent of presidential oversight in the clemency process.
As investigations by both Congress and the DOJ continue, the outcome of these inquiries may establish important precedents regarding the management of executive clemency during presidential transitions.
The findings could influence how future administrations approach the balance between operational efficiency and constitutional obligations in issuing pardons.
