Former NIAID special assistant invoked the Fifth Amendment; Rand Paul says DOJ referral is next
by James Lyons-Weiler, PhD, Popular Rationalism, ©2026
(Sep. 24, 2026) — The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee failed Wednesday to approve an immunity request for a longtime former assistant to Dr. Anthony Fauci, leaving unanswered questions about the destruction of federal records during Fauci’s tenure at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
The September 23 vote was 8–7, with all eight Republicans supporting the resolution and all seven Democrats opposing it. Although a majority of the committee voted in favor, federal law requires approval from two-thirds of the full committee before it may seek a court order granting immunity. With 15 members, the committee needed 10 votes.
The committee has not publicly named the witness. However, the former assistant has been reported to be Patricia L. Conrad, who served for years as a special assistant in Fauci’s office.
Townhall, citing the Washington Examiner, reported that the assistant was Patricia Conrad. The Daily Caller independently noted that Conrad was a Fauci special assistant from 2007 through 2022—the same employment period Chairman Rand Paul used to describe the unnamed witness—and that she appears in communications central to the committee’s COVID-origins investigation.
There is strong independent documentation of Conrad’s role, although that documentation does not by itself establish that she is the unnamed immunity witness. A 2024 House Select Subcommittee report identifies Patricia Conrad as “Special Assistant to the Director” at NIAID and reproduces a January 31, 2020 email she sent on Fauci’s behalf to Wellcome Trust Director Jeremy Farrar as the scientists were arranging discussions concerning the origin of SARS-CoV-2.
During Fauci’s July 29, 2026 Senate testimony, Conrad’s name also surfaced directly. A senator asked Fauci whether he remembered Patricia Conrad and identified her as his personal assistant. Fauci declined to answer the question, invoking the Fifth Amendment.
The Witness Took the Fifth
According to Paul and the committee, the former special assistant was first asked to cooperate voluntarily and was subsequently subpoenaed. She appeared for a closed-door deposition the week before Wednesday’s vote, was placed under oath and invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination rather than answer the committee’s questions.
Paul said the committee wants to determine what occurred with federal records during Fauci’s tenure, including who ordered records destroyed, how many records were destroyed and over what period of time. The proposed immunity order was intended to remove the witness’s potential criminal exposure from her testimony so that the committee could question her about those matters.
Paul emphasized that approving immunity would not constitute a finding that the witness had committed a crime. Under the contemplated order, her compelled testimony and evidence derived from it could not be used against her in a criminal prosecution.
The distinction is important: the committee is investigating allegations concerning destruction of federal records. The fact that a witness invokes the Fifth Amendment is not, by itself, proof that she committed a crime.
Read the rest here.
Leave a Reply