Rand Paul leans forward and tells Anthony Fauci directly. What we are alleging is that gain of function research was going on in that lab and NIH funded it. That is not away from it. It meets your own definition. And you are obfuscating the truth.

Fauci snaps back. I am not obfuscating the truth.

Paul cuts him off. You are the one obfuscating the truth.

That exchange happened in a United States Senate hearing room in front of the cameras and the American people. Fauci was visibly rattled. The man who had spent two years telling the country he represented science itself, who said questioning him was questioning science, who dismissed every concern about the Wuhan lab as dangerous conspiracy theory, could not hold it together when one senator pushed back with specific evidence.

He was not calm. He was not confident. He was shaking.

Now we know why.

The declassified documents Tulsi Gabbard released on her final day as Director of National Intelligence confirmed everything Paul was saying in that hearing room. NIH funded dangerous gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Fauci knew the CIA’s own scientists concluded the virus came from the lab. He steered the agency toward natural origin scientists instead. A CIA commission voted six to one for lab leak and he got the conclusion changed. He knew in January 2020 the wet market was not the source.

He was shaking because he knew Paul was right.

On July 29th Paul subpoenas Fauci to testify under oath again. This time with five years of declassified evidence on the table and a DOJ referral already filed.

The shaking was just the preview. July 29th is the main event.

Subscribe at 29% off forever and be here when the accountability arrives.

Get 29% off forever

Rand Paul didn’t wait for the July 29 hearing to start releasing what his committee has found. He built an entire public archive for it.

Become a paid subscriber for the full archive and early releases.

Get 29% off forever

Paul launched what he’s calling The Reading Room, a public-facing repository at paul.senate.gov/readingroom containing records from his committee’s ongoing investigation into COVID’s origins and federally funded gain-of-function research. It’s being updated on a rolling basis, meaning new documents keep landing as the investigation continues, not a one-time data dump designed to fade from the news cycle after a single day.

The launch alone came with a bombshell. Documents show that Customs and Border Protection built a formal targeting action to question EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak when he returned from the WHO’s own COVID origins mission, before the FBI stepped in and told agents to stand down. Someone wanted Daszak questioned. Someone else, with the authority to override that decision, made sure it never happened.

Why would federal agents be told to back off questioning the man at the center of America’s gain-of-function funding to Wuhan?

The Diary Entry That Undercuts Years of Public Reassurance

The most recent addition to the Reading Room, posted just days ago, may be the most damaging yet. According to the documents, Fauci’s own personal diary reveals that as early as January 31, 2020, he was told by top virologists that COVID’s furin cleavage site raised real doubts about a natural origin, with roughly half the scientists on that initial call believing the virus looked “constructed.”

That’s a private admission from the very first weeks of the pandemic. Fauci knew, in real time, that credible scientists were raising serious doubts about a natural origin. He spent the following years publicly and confidently dismissing the lab leak theory anyway, telling the American people the science was settled when his own diary shows it wasn’t, at least not in his own mind.

The documents also detail Fauci’s private frustration and defensiveness over gain-of-function funding questions tied to EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, even as he told Congress under oath that no such research had occurred.

This Isn’t a New Fight, and Paul Isn’t Backing Down From It

Paul’s clash with Fauci over the actual definition of gain-of-function research goes back years, and it’s central to why so many people distrust anything Fauci has said on the subject since. During a heated 2021 hearing, Paul accused NIH of quietly changing the definition on its own website specifically to protect Fauci’s prior denials, telling him bluntly that the agency had altered the wording to “cover your ass, basically.”

Fauci’s own defense at the time only reinforced Paul’s suspicion. He called gain-of-function “a nebulous term,” claiming officials were simply trying to develop “a more precise definition” right around the same time the NIH quietly scrubbed the term from its website and replaced it with vaguer language like ePPP and P3CO.

Paul later laid out exactly how absurd that redefinition actually was. Under the altered standard, he explained, combining an unknown bat virus with a pathogen as lethal as MERS wouldn’t even count as gain-of-function research, because researchers supposedly can’t know in advance whether the result will actually be enhanced. Paul called that logic exactly what it is. “That’s crazy,” he wrote, arguing the NIH was defining gain-of-function out of existence rather than confronting what it had actually funded.

To be fair to the other side of this fight, Fauci has never accepted that characterization. He’s called Paul’s line of questioning “egregiously incorrect” and insisted the definition NIH used had been developed over more than two years before formal adoption by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. That’s Fauci’s defense, on the record, and it hasn’t changed much in the years since.

What happens July 29 will be the first time Fauci has to answer for all of it, under subpoena, with the Reading Room’s documents sitting in the public record for anyone to check his answers against.

Get 29% off forever to symbolize the hard work Rand Paul has put in on this issue for years.

Let's hope the DOJ finally recognizes that Fauci's pardon is nonsense and finally prosecutes.

Get 29% off forever

It’s amazing how quickly and aggressively criticism is directed toward fellow partisans.

Rand Paul has been vocal in opposing unbridled expansion of federal government and questioning candidates whose previous service records demonstrate more of the same. Hoewver, Mullin intervened in the proceeding to characterize Paul’s criticisms as detrimental to the interests of fellow Republicans.

The back-and-forth illustrated a fundamental split; one group advocates for aggressive questioning as a means of accountability. Another believes aggressive questioning is nothing less than disloyalty to the greater cause.

What did Mullin allege and why does it matter? It’s all spelled out below for paid subscribers.

The most important Fauci hearing in five years happens July 29th. Subscribe at 29% off forever before it starts and never pay full price again.

Get 29% off forever

Read more

For decades, Americans have witnessed the increase in the size of our government, but all we really have to show for it are increasing burdens on our children and grandchildren.

Rand Paul has openly called out for this kind of behavior. His is a voice that differs greatly from most of the rest of the crowd, which usually offer some type of excuse.

So the question still remains, just how much can the outcry against never-ending deficits actually accomplish until another crisis arises?

Biden pardoned Fauci. That pardon does not cover congressional testimony. July 29th, Rand Paul reminds him of that. Subscribe now at 29% off forever.

Get 29% off forever

Read more

Subscribe now

Rand Paul held a hearing this week to expose fraud draining billions from American taxpayers. Democrats mostly couldn’t be bothered to attend.

As chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Paul convened a hearing called Exposing Fraud in America, bringing in witnesses to testify about theft from public programs, weak government oversight, and fraud spreading through voter registration drives and Medicaid billing alike. Seven Democratic committee members found somewhere else to be that day.

Become a paid subscriber for the full archive and early access.

Subscribe now

When Paul was asked whether a Democrat should get the chance to question the witnesses next, he didn’t miss a beat. He replied, “If there were a Democrat here, yes.” That’s not a scripted talking point. That’s a man pointing at an empty row of chairs and letting the silence speak for itself.

Doesn’t an empty committee room tell you everything you need to know about which party actually wants this fraud rooted out?

The Numbers Behind the Empty Chairs

This hearing didn’t happen in a vacuum. It came on the heels of federal prosecutors charging fifteen defendants in Minnesota schemes involving more than ninety million dollars in intended losses. One case alone, a Medicaid autism fraud scheme, involved forty six point six million dollars in claims for services that were never even provided, built on kickbacks used to lure in families.

Paul didn’t let that number pass quietly either. He posted about the hearing directly, making the case that Washington lacks the political will to stop billions of taxpayer dollars from disappearing into fraudulent programs.

Here’s the sharp observation that should bother every taxpayer reading this. According to the Government Accountability Office, the federal government loses somewhere between two hundred thirty three billion and five hundred twenty one billion dollars every single year to fraud. That’s not a rounding error buried in a budget appendix. That’s an entire industry built on stealing from programs meant to help the sick, the elderly, and the disabled.

Paul Has Been Fighting This for Years

This wasn’t Paul’s first swing at government waste, and it won’t be his last. He’s spent years releasing his annual Festivus Report, a document dedicated entirely to exposing outlandish ways Washington burns through taxpayer money. In one appearance highlighting government waste, Paul pointed to over a hundred twenty billion dollars in improper payments from Medicare and Medicaid combined, a staggering figure that barely gets mentioned outside of a handful of dedicated watchdogs.

Paul has also gone after the specific loopholes that let fraud flourish in plain sight. He introduced legislation to end Medicaid payments for illegal aliens immediately, arguing that several states are still cashing in on the federal government’s generous ninety percent match rate while covering people who were never supposed to be eligible in the first place.

Why do some states get rewarded with extra federal dollars for bending the rules while honest taxpayers foot the bill?

The Response From the Other Side Says Everything

Senator Bernie Moreno didn’t hold back either during the same hearing, slamming Democrats directly for skipping a hearing meant to protect taxpayer money. He put it plainly, saying the entire Democrat side of the dais sat empty, and that an entire party apparently doesn’t care whether taxpayer money gets burned.

That absence matters more than any press release could. Witnesses at the hearing, including investigative journalists Nick Shirley and James O’Keefe, laid out disturbing details about theft from public programs and weak oversight mechanisms that let fraud spread unchecked for years. Those are the kinds of facts a serious opposition party would want to hear firsthand, not avoid entirely.

This Fight Isn’t Slowing Down

Paul’s committee work is happening alongside a much larger federal push. The Department of Justice’s 2026 National Health Care Fraud Takedown already charged hundreds of defendants across dozens of states, working through every single state Medicaid Fraud Control Unit in the country. Paul’s hearing wasn’t a one off political stunt. It’s part of a much broader effort finally putting real numbers and real consequences behind years of quiet theft.

Paul has spent his career arguing that government waste isn’t a partisan talking point, it’s a taxpayer betrayal that both parties should be racing to fix. This week, only one party showed up to actually do that work.

How many more empty committee rooms does it take before Americans stop pretending both parties take fraud seriously? Rand Paul didn’t need to say much more than six words to answer that question himself.

Rand Paul just re-referred Anthony Fauci to the Department of Justice for prosecution. His statement was direct. The evidence is clear. Fauci funded dangerous research, knew the likely origin of COVID as early as January 2020, and spent years lying to Congress and the American people.

That last part is the most damning thing Paul has ever said about Fauci publicly. Not just that he lied about gain of function research. Not just that he steered the CIA away from the lab leak conclusion. But that he knew in January 2020 that the virus did not come from the Wuhan wet market and told the American public the opposite for years anyway.

Here is what Paul told Maria Bartiromo on Fox Business.

The Biden administration stymied the investigation for years and would not hand over documents. The Trump administration has been cooperative and RFK Jr’s team turned over virtually everything. What they now know beyond a reasonable doubt is that Fauci funded gain of function research. The viruses were becoming more lethal, more attachable to human cells, and more infectious.

But it goes further than that.

A scientific commission within the CIA voted six to one that the virus came from the lab. Fauci was somehow able to get that conclusion changed. The virologists he handpicked, who were major recipients of federal dollars, initially said the virus looked manipulated. He convinced them otherwise.

And in January 2020 Fauci was already privately acknowledging the wet market was a spreader event but not the initial event. People were getting sick weeks before the wet market outbreak. He knew. And for years he told the public the opposite.

This was all misdirection. This was a cover-up. And on July 29th Rand Paul subpoenas Fauci to testify under oath with all of that evidence on the table.

15 million people died. There need to be repercussions.

Subscribe at 29% off forever and be here when accountability finally arrives.

Get 29% off forever

Nobody expected a breadstick promotion to become the clearest argument for voter ID this country has seen in years, but here it is.

Olive Garden brought back its Never-Ending Pasta Pass this week, and the company made one thing non-negotiable. Passholders must show a valid photo ID before they can order. The pass is personalized, non-transferable, and locked to one name. A restaurant chain figured out basic fraud prevention in about five seconds, and it exposed a decade of Democrat excuses in the process.

Paid subscribers get access to the full archive and early releases.

Subscribe now

Long before Olive Garden ever made headlines for this, Rand Paul had already made the exact same argument in his own words. Back in February, Paul posted that Democrats insist on ID for banks, flights, hotels, alcohol, and even event tickets, yet fight voter ID at the polls, and asked plainly why elections should be any different.

Isn’t that the whole debate in one sentence?

He Called This Months Before Olive Garden Did

Paul has been one of the loudest Republican voices pushing the SAVE America Act through the Senate all year, and his reasoning has never wavered. In March he told reporters that in-person voting was the best way to vote and raised real concerns about the reliability of mail-in ballots, a system that skips identity verification almost entirely.

He didn’t stop there. Paul has said outright that showing identification should be the bare minimum to vote, framing it as a basic standard rather than some radical demand. States already require ID for driver’s licenses and gun purchases. Nobody calls that suppression. So why does the exact same requirement suddenly become controversial the moment it protects a ballot instead of a Buick?

Paul has also shown he’s willing to negotiate to actually get this passed, telling reporters he’d support narrowing the bill if that’s what it takes to lock in all fifty three Republican votes plus a Democrat or two. That’s not the posture of an extremist. That’s the posture of a man trying to get something done instead of scoring points on cable news.

Democrats Still Haven’t Answered the Actual Question

Here’s what should make every Democrat in the Senate deeply uncomfortable. Olive Garden isn’t a think tank. It isn’t a political operative. It’s a casual dining chain that looked at fraud risk on a hundred dollar promotion and decided identification was mandatory, without a single ounce of political motivation.

If a plate of chicken parmesan deserves that level of protection, why doesn’t the presidency of the United States? Nobody has managed to answer that question with anything more than recycled talking points about disenfranchisement, and those talking points are getting harder to sell every single day this story stays in the news.

Groups like the Campaign Legal Center are still out there insisting the SAVE Act creates unnecessary hurdles for eligible voters. Meanwhile actual reporting has confirmed the bill includes multiple documented paths to prove citizenship, and Paul himself has pointed out that the goal was never to make voting harder for legitimate citizens. The goal is making it impossible for people who shouldn’t be voting in the first place.

The Fight Isn’t Finished, and Paul Isn’t Backing Down

The SAVE America Act has already passed the House twice this year. It is still stuck in the Senate, still short of the votes needed to break a filibuster, and still being fought tooth and nail by a Democrat caucus that apparently trusts a pasta chain’s fraud controls more than its own state election systems.

Rand Paul isn’t walking away from this fight, and he shouldn’t. He’s been making this case with receipts for months, long before a restaurant’s terms of service turned it into a national punchline. The only difference now is that millions of Americans who never paid attention to a Senate floor debate suddenly understand the argument in about ten seconds.

How much longer can Democrats keep dodging a question this simple? A restaurant chain already gave the answer. Now it’s just a matter of whether the Senate catches up.

Six months of negotiating. A voluntary agreement to testify, finally locked in. Then, one week before he was supposed to show up, Anthony Fauci simply changed his mind.

Paid subscribers get access to the full archive and early releases.

July 29th — that's when Rand Paul brings Fauci in for questioning.

Get 29% off forever

Rand Paul, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, laid it out plainly. Last week, Anthony Fauci notified us he will not voluntarily testify, Paul wrote, even though he had previously agreed to do so.

Last week, Anthony Fauci notified us he will NOT voluntarily testify before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, even though he had previously agreed to do so, said Paul.

That’s not spin. That’s the sequence of events, confirmed by Paul’s own office and reported across multiple outlets. Fauci said yes. Then Fauci said no. Then Paul made yes mandatory.

Why would a man with nothing to hide need six months of negotiation just to agree to a hearing, only to bail at the last minute anyway?

Paul didn’t mince words describing the runup to this moment. We’ve been negotiating with him for material and for testimony, Paul said in a CNBC interview. This has gone on for some time. He slow-walked us and slow-walked us. Finally agreed to come in voluntarily, then last week he says he’s not coming in.

Slow-walked. That’s the word doing the heavy lifting here, and it tracks with a pattern stretching back years. This is the same man who told Congress in 2021 that the NIH had never funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a statement directly contradicted by an email later made public in which Fauci himself acknowledged that Wuhan researchers were working on exactly that kind of experiment, tied to bat viruses adapting to infect humans, weeks before the pandemic was even declared a national emergency.

Paul’s subpoena didn’t come out of nowhere either. It landed just days after outgoing Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard declassified a batch of documents she said exposed Fauci’s role in steering the intelligence community away from the lab leak theory and toward the natural origin explanation, even as internal analysts pushed back. Gabbard didn’t hedge her language. She accused Fauci of manipulating intelligence and lying to Congress, adding that the American people deserve transparency, truth, and accountability after years of cover ups.

Isn’t it worth asking why the timing lines up the way it does? Gabbard drops the documents. Days later, Fauci suddenly decides the hearing he’d already agreed to attend isn’t something he wants to do after all.

Paul has also pointed to testimony from a CIA official alleging that an internal scientific commission inside the agency voted six to one in favor of the lab origin theory, a conclusion Paul says later shifted under pressure he hasn’t yet fully detailed. Whether that specific claim holds up under scrutiny is exactly the kind of question a public hearing is supposed to answer. That’s the entire point of compelling testimony instead of accepting a written statement crafted by lawyers.

Fauci does have one escape hatch left. He can challenge the subpoena in court, dragging the fight out further and adding yet another chapter to a standoff that’s already stretched across half a year of stalling. Paul’s message on that front has been blunt. With this subpoena power, we will bring him in, unless he fights this in court.

Biden’s blanket pardon complicates the legal stakes but doesn’t erase the political ones. That pardon covered potential offenses going back a decade, but Paul has already signaled he considers it constitutionally shaky, vague enough to challenge, and irrelevant to the basic question a congressional committee is entitled to ask. A pardon protects against prosecution. It doesn’t protect against having to answer questions under oath in a public hearing room, on the record, on camera.

July 29 is the date now circled on the calendar. Fauci is set to appear before Paul’s committee, under compulsion this time rather than by choice, to face questions about Wuhan funding, gain-of-function research, and whether his 2024 testimony to Congress squares with what the declassified documents actually show.

The man spent the better part of the pandemic telling Americans to trust the science and trust the experts. When it finally came time to sit across from the people asking the questions, he tried to walk away instead. It took a subpoena to change his mind.

Get 29% off forever

The Dems’ refusal to make concessions is indicative of a larger problem within Congress. Republicans are capable of handling routine national responsibilities.

The Dems?

Not so much.

Rand Paul said that the Democratic senators had put roadblocks in place (on 77 different occasions) to block his efforts to promote border security.

He stated that each time the Democratic senators placed their roadblocks in the way of funds to support law enforcement and infrastructure along the U.S./Mexico border he had to work around the rules of the Senate to keep the flow of funds going.

The methods used by the Democratic Senators? We explain those tactics and Paul’s response below for subscribers.

On July 29th Rand Paul puts Fauci under oath again. Subscribe now at 29% off forever and follow every moment with us.

Get 29% off forever

Read more

Rand Paul didn’t need many words to make his point. “American jobs should go to American citizens, not foreign fraudsters,” he wrote, thanking President Trump and Vice President Vance “for rooting out this kind of fraud and fighting for the American people.”

Paid subscribers get access to the full archive and early releases.

Subscribe now

That short statement was Paul’s response to news that should have every American worker paying attention. Speaking in Milwaukee this week, Vance announced that the federal Department of Labor has opened dozens of subpoenas and investigations into fraud tied to the H-1B visa program, the system that allows U.S. companies to bring in foreign workers for specialized roles. “I’m proud to announce that the federal Department of Labor has started dozens of subpoenas and investigations into foreign fraudsters who are trying to take advantage of the H-1B visa program,” Vance told the crowd.

Why does this program keep drawing scrutiny year after year?

Because the gap between what H-1B was designed to do and what it’s actually being used for has grown too wide to ignore. Vance laid out the original intent plainly. “This is a visa program that was set up to ensure that if you were a brilliant technology person, or a brilliant scientist, or a brilliant doctor, you could come to the United States and get access to this visa program.” Nobody serious argues against attracting genuine world-class talent. The problem, according to Vance, is what’s happened since. “What’s happening way too much is that big corporations and fraudsters overseas are using this program to undercut the wages of American workers.”

That’s not a fringe claim. The program currently keeps roughly 800,000 non-immigrant foreign contract workers employed in U.S. jobs, with close to seventy percent of new applications concentrated in the tech industry alone. Every one of those slots is a position an American graduate isn’t filling, and the Trump administration has argued for years that a meaningful share of them exist because of fraud, not genuine skill shortages, including workers paid below the wage certified on their labor applications or placed into jobs entirely different from the ones listed on their original H-1B petition.

Isn’t that exactly the kind of quiet, paperwork-level fraud that never makes headlines until someone actually goes looking for it?

Vance didn’t mince words about what happens next. “If you are trying to take advantage of that visa program, you are not allowed into the United States of America.” That’s a real consequence attached to real enforcement, backed by a Labor Department Inspector General investigation that’s already uncovered employers and labor brokers submitting fraudulent applications, exploiting foreign workers through coercive wage-kickback schemes, and flooding the market with below-wage labor specifically to undercut American applicants.

Paul’s willingness to publicly praise the crackdown fits a pattern he’s built his entire career around. He’s never been shy about calling out government waste and fraud regardless of who benefits from looking the other way, and this fight cuts directly at both ends of the problem he’s flagged before, foreign actors gaming a federal system, and large corporations quietly profiting from workers being paid less than the law requires.

Not everyone thinks the administration has gone far enough yet. Kevin Lynn, founder of U.S. Tech Workers, welcomed the announcement but pushed for more. “This is encouraging, but it falls short of everything they can and should be doing,” Lynn said, adding that he wants to see real consequences, barred companies, meaningful fines, before declaring the effort a genuine success rather than campaign messaging. That’s a fair bar to set, and it’s one the administration will have to clear with actual results, not just subpoenas.

For now, the numbers speak for themselves. Dozens of open investigations. Dozens of subpoenas already issued. A federal task force explicitly built to chase this kind of fraud down. Paul’s two-sentence statement wasn’t complicated, and it didn’t need to be. American jobs should go to American citizens. Everything else is a technicality fraudsters have been exploiting for years, and the Labor Department is finally treating it like the crime it is instead of a paperwork inconvenience.

Two words. That’s all it took for Rand Paul to sum up an entire economic system that has starved, jailed, and killed more people than almost any ideology in human history.

Paid subscribers get access to the full archive and early releases.

Subscribe now

Paul shared a clip of President Trump speaking at the NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey, adding a caption as blunt as it gets. Communism is poison. Nothing more needed to be said, because Trump had already said plenty.

Standing before reporters at the summit, Trump delivered one of the sharpest breakdowns of communism’s actual sales pitch that a sitting president has offered in years. Communism is easy to sell, he told the press pool, joking that he could be the greatest communist in history, right up there with Lenin. The pitch writes itself, he explained. Free rent for the rest of your life.

Why does that pitch keep working, decade after decade, country after country?

Because nobody advertises the part that comes next. What they don’t say, Trump continued, is that you’ll be living in squalor within twelve months. The free house promised to one family gets seized from another family first, and once that pattern starts, Trump warned, it doesn’t stay contained to housing. You’ll have murders all over the place.

That’s not hyperbole dressed up as a punchline. That’s the actual historical record. Trump called communism a disaster proven across thousands of years and different names, all landing in the same place. Bread lines. Secret police. Neighbors informing on neighbors. The Soviet Union tried it. Mao’s China tried it. Venezuela is still living through it right now. Every version promises abundance and delivers scarcity, then blames the scarcity on everyone except the ideology itself.

Trump didn’t stop at the historical pattern. He tied the warning directly to what he’s watching unfold at home. What’s forming is communism in the country, he told reporters, describing the threat as bigger than anything the nation has faced since Pearl Harbor or September 11th. Once a country goes communist, he said, it never comes back.

That’s a heavy claim. It’s also one Paul, a man who has spent his career warning about government overreach in every form it takes, clearly didn’t feel needed softening.

Isn’t it worth asking why this warning is landing now, specifically?

Because the political ground has shifted fast. Trump’s comments came weeks after Zohran Mamdani’s win in New York City’s mayoral race, a breakthrough for democratic socialism that was quickly followed by several more socialist primary victories in the same city. What used to be a fringe position inside the Democratic coalition is now winning elections in the financial capital of the world. Trump connected that dot explicitly, framing the rise of these campaigns as the early stage of exactly the pattern he was describing on stage in Turkey.

Reaction split predictably along familiar lines. Critics seized on Trump’s Lenin comparison as an odd flex for a sitting American president to make on a world stage. Supporters heard something else entirely, a blunt refusal to dress up a failed ideology in gentler language just because polling shows it’s gaining traction with younger voters.

Paul’s two word response cut straight through both reactions. He didn’t engage with the joke about Lenin or the political theater of a NATO press conference. He named the actual stakes. Poison doesn’t announce itself as poison. It gets dressed up as free rent, free housing, free everything, right up until the moment the promise collapses and takes the people who believed it down with it.

That’s the argument Trump made standing next to NATO’s blue and white backdrop in Ankara, and it’s the argument Paul has been making in one form or another for his entire career. Some ideas don’t get less dangerous just because a new generation is hearing the pitch for the first time.

For over a decade, thousands of federal scientists have collected royalty payments tied to their government research. How much money. Which companies paid it. Why. The public still doesn’t know any of that, because the agencies writing the checks have spent years refusing to say.

Paid subscribers get access to the full archive and early releases.

Subscribe now

Rand Paul’s Royalty Transparency Act aims to close that gap for good. The bill would require federal employees, including scientists at agencies like the NIH, to publicly disclose any royalty payments they receive connected to their government service, the same way other financial conflicts of interest already get reported. It would also force members of federal advisory committees, the panels that recommend everything from vaccine schedules to drug approvals, to make their financial disclosures public for the first time.

Why does this take an act of Congress to fix something that sounds like basic common sense?

Because the NIH has spent years actively fighting to keep the numbers hidden. Watchdog group Open the Books filed a Freedom of Information Act request back in 2021 just to find out which employees were receiving royalties. What came back was heavily redacted. When the NIH finally released additional documents years later, the actual payment amounts were still blacked out. The organization eventually had to sue, represented by Judicial Watch, just to pry loose more information, and even then, individual payment amounts, the identity of the paying companies, and the specific patents involved all stayed hidden from public view.

What Open the Books did manage to uncover through litigation should stop anyone defending the current system. Roughly 2,400 NIH scientists were awarded more than $300 million in royalties over the past decade, an average of $135,000 per scientist. Separately, the organization found that since 2010, roughly $650 million in third-party royalty payments has flowed into the agency and its scientists. That’s not petty cash. That’s a massive, largely invisible financial relationship between government researchers and the pharmaceutical companies whose products those same researchers may later be reviewing, approving, or recommending.

Isn’t that exactly the kind of conflict of interest the public has a right to see?

Paul has been chasing this problem since well before it became a bill. He directly confronted Anthony Fauci about it in a Senate hearing years ago, and by Paul’s own account, Fauci’s response amounted to telling the public it was none of their business. “This is something that I inquired when I had Anthony Fauci in our committee,” Paul said. “I’d said, you know, we need to know this, this is a basic conflict of interest problem, and he basically thumbed his nose at the American people.” Fauci’s evasiveness wasn’t a one-time slip either. Reporting on a separate hearing described him as evasive and misleading yet again when pressed on the same royalty question, offering the same non-answer about existing statutes not technically requiring disclosure.

The COVID years are exactly why this stopped being an abstract accountability question for Paul. “During COVID, we had vaccines that were developed by Pfizer and Moderna. And then these vaccines were mandated on people throughout government, throughout the military, by different governors around the country, and yet, we don’t know whether the people that were approving either the vaccines or the mandates were receiving money from big Pharma,” Paul explained. That’s not a hypothetical concern. Advisory committees like the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices make recommendations that ripple out into mandates affecting millions of Americans. If members of those committees are quietly collecting royalty checks from the same companies whose products they’re evaluating, the public deserves to know before the recommendation gets made, not years later through a lawsuit.

The bill isn’t a partisan wish list either. It passed out of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on a unanimous 12-0 vote, drawing support from figures across the political spectrum who all landed on the same basic principle. Taxpayers have a right to know when the people making decisions about their health are also being paid by the industries those decisions affect.

Paul reintroduced the legislation again this year, continuing a fight he’s now waged across multiple congressional sessions against an agency that has consistently chosen litigation and redaction over simply opening the books. As Adam Andrzejewski of Open the Books put it, the American people deserve to finally “follow the money.” Right now, thanks to years of NIH stonewalling, they still can’t.

A woman gets a knock on her door. A police sergeant tells her the case is a lock, one hundred percent, no doubt. The problem is she’s innocent, and it takes weeks of gathering her own footage just to prove it.

Paid subscribers get access to the full archive and early releases.

Subscribe now

Senator Rand Paul recently shared exactly that story, the case of Chrisanna Elser, a Denver area financial advisor who found herself accused of stealing a twenty five dollar package based entirely on Flock Safety’s automated license plate cameras. The footage the officer used to build his case? He wouldn’t even show it to her. Elser had to dig up her own truck camera and a neighbor’s doorbell footage, on her own time, on her own dime, just to prove she was somewhere else entirely.

Guilty until proven innocent, and only able to prove her innocence with her own footage. That’s not a slogan. That’s exactly what happened.

Why does an innocent woman have to build her own defense case against a machine that never gets cross examined?

Because that’s precisely the danger Paul has been warning about for months. He’s not new to this fight. Back in the fall, Paul joined Oregon Senator Ron Wyden in demanding a Federal Trade Commission investigation into Flock’s security practices, after reports surfaced that stolen police logins had exposed vehicle tracking data to anyone with the right credentials. No multi factor authentication. No meaningful safeguard standing between a compromised password and a database capable of tracking where any driver in America has been.

Think about what that actually means. A system built to catch criminals turned out to be catchable itself, by anyone patient enough to steal the right login.

Paul’s concern has never fit neatly into a partisan box, and that’s exactly why this story matters. Flock’s cameras now operate in more than five thousand communities, scanning upward of twenty billion vehicle images every month. The company markets itself as a crime fighting tool, promising to help departments solve cases faster. What Elser’s case exposed, and what Paul has been pointing to for months, is a system where the technology gets treated as proof first and questioned only after the damage is already done.

Isn’t that exactly backwards from how the presumption of innocence is supposed to work?

The sergeant in Elser’s case told her nothing gets in or out of the town without us knowing, a level of confidence that turned out to be spectacularly wrong. Bow Mar’s cameras placed her truck in the area during the theft window. They didn’t, and couldn’t, prove she committed a crime. That distinction got lost entirely until Elser did the investigative work herself, work that should have belonged to law enforcement from the start.

This is the same pattern showing up across the country. Cities from Austin to Denver have begun canceling Flock contracts outright. Even Amazon’s Ring backed out of a planned data sharing integration with the company after public backlash. Colorado lawmakers introduced a bill this spring specifically responding to Elser’s case, aiming to restrict how police access and share the data these cameras collect. Meanwhile, immigration agencies have reportedly tapped into local Flock networks without the knowledge of the city officials who approved the cameras in the first place, exactly the kind of mission creep critics warned about from day one.

Paul has spent his career fighting exactly this kind of quiet expansion of surveillance power, going back to his lawsuits against NSA metadata collection years before Flock cameras existed. The technology changes. The underlying concern doesn’t. Once a surveillance network exists, its use rarely stays confined to the narrow purpose officials promised when they first installed it.

What happened to Elser wasn’t a hypothetical slippery slope. It was a woman standing on her own porch, being told by a police officer that the case against her was airtight, when the truth was the opposite. She won her fight. Most people confronting a similarly confident, similarly wrong accusation might not have the time, the resources, or the doorbell camera footage to win theirs.

That’s the argument Paul keeps making, and the Elser case just handed him the clearest example yet. A camera isn’t a witness. It’s a tool, and tools are only as reliable as the humans required to double check them before ruining someone’s life.

Experts who predicted smooth interventions are now insisting on escalation. Debates continue and Rand Paul steps forward to question the track record of those who keep pushing for continued involvement.

His comments show consistent doubt towards warnings that never really come true. This approach goes against conventional wisdom in Washington.

Those who favor sustained pressure argue that any pause gives advantages to adversaries but the Senator points to a series of exaggerated warnings that failed to result in the dire outcomes that were forecast.

What’s the Paul Plan? It’s detailed below for paid subscribers.

Paid subscribers get our complete coverage of Rand Paul’s July 29th Fauci hearing, the documents, the history, and what happens next. Subscribe now at 29% off forever and be ready.

Get 29% off forever

Read more

Right Angle News Network X

When the Supreme Court recently struck down President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship – which currently allows any child born on U.S. soil automatic citizenship - Sen. Rand Paul was not surprised.

He had also already thought ahead on this.

The senator knew the chances of the high court up upholding an executive order were slim, so he already introduced an amendment that could end birthright citizenship through congressional action.

If enough members would vote for his amendment.

‘American Citizenship Belongs to the Children of Americans’

On Thursday, Paul made the plain point that American citizenship should belong to the children of American citizens, not merely foreigners who visit the U.S. long enough to have their children, and then either leave or never had any real commitment to the U.S. beyond that.

The 14th Amendment was enacted after the Civil War to give former slaves basic constitutional rights and civil liberties. it was a necessary measure to give citizenship and personhood to newly freed slaves so that they could become full fledged Americans, no longer the mere property they were once legally considered.

American citizenship was something to be proud of and to cherish. Americans with a home and stake in the U.S. should consider basic citizenship their birthright.

Citizenship should never be for sale.

But that’s exactly what’s happening.

‘Birth Packages’

Are some Texas hospitals running advertisements in Latino countries encouraging expectant mothers to come to the U.S., presumably illegally, for a fee - called “birth packages” - for what some are also calling “birth tourism.”

The Daily Signal reported on Tuesday that after the Supreme Court ruling upholding birthright citizenship, “The following day, Republican state Rep. Brian Harrison sent a letter urging the Texas Legislature to convene an immediate special session to protect Texans from ‘birth tourism.”

More for the Signal (emphasis added):

In his letter, Harrison called for legislation making it a felony to operate or participate in birth tourism within Texas, expanding the criminal offense of illegal entry to include entering the state for the purpose of birth tourism, and granting the Texas attorney general authority to investigate and prosecute birth tourism cases.

Harrison is also urging lawmakers to adopt a resolution formally condemning the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision and another resolution calling on Congress to take action on birthright citizenship.

Harrison’s letter comes as reports have surfaced that U.S. hospitals have advertised “birth packages” costing up to $5,000 for foreign nationals seeking to give birth in border states such as Texas.

The story noted, “One advertisement for Mission Regional Medical Center appeared on a highway billboard. Written in both English and Spanish, it directed expectant mothers to call a phone number or visit a website for information about giving birth in South Texas.”

It’s to believe this actually exists - and is tolerated.

But it is, and it has been.

Why Wait for Congress - States Can Kickstart This

In lieu of waiting on Congress to pass his amendment - and it’s never a good idea to wait long for Congress to do anything - Paul urged states to end birthright citizenship on their own.

Sen. Paul said in an interview with Fox News’ Will Cain, “You could have 38 state legislatures initiate this and you could be heading towards a convention. And guess what? Congress might wake up at that point and say, you know, rather than have a convention, maybe we should do our job and pass this amendment, which used to have bipartisan support.”

Paul continued, “My plan is to go to the Kentucky state legislature first and ask them if they’ll pass this amendment and let’s get it done one state at a time and put pressure on Congress and put pressure on the Democrats.”

The senator also noted that Americans overwhelmingly want this change.

“This is an 80 percent issue,” Paul said. “You know, people don’t think it’s a good idea to have eight million people come into your country, have on average two kids apiece, and they’re all voting to transform the country. “

“Nobody voting on those amendments thought that we were going to let the children of 8 million people break into our country and then they would get to vote,” he added.

Barely over a year ago, the late Charlie Kirk was calling for an end to automatic birthright citizenship.

Kirk wrote in June 2025, “Birthright Citizenship was written for freed slaves, NOT the anchor babies of illegals.”

“Pass it on,” he added.

The madness of allowing illegal aliens to enter the U.S. only to bestow American citizenship on their newborns has been going on for far too long and needs to end.

America welcomes legal immigrants from all over the world who want to come to the U.S., work hard, and make it their home.

Americans do not want “birth tourism” or lucrative “birth packages’ being sold, which are a detriment to national security and an insult to America’s national dignity.

A constitutional amendment to end this insane practice is a no-brainer.

Rand Paul has made his move. Will the other members of Congress make theirs?

Paid subscribers get access to the full archive and early releases.

Subscribe now

The Kentucky senator recently revisited a fight he’s been having with the public health establishment since the earliest days of COVID. The issue of natural immunity is something he talked about from the beginning, Paul wrote, only to get labeled a conspiracy theorist and an anti-vaxxer for saying it.

That’s not a slight exaggeration for dramatic effect. That’s a documented record.

Back in 2020, before most Americans had even settled on how to pronounce coronavirus correctly, Paul was already making the argument that people who’d recovered from an infection carried real, measurable protection. CNN ran a piece calling his position wildly irresponsible. The network went so far as to lump the sitting senator in with anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists, the same label Paul referenced in his recent post, arguing America didn’t need a doctor in the Senate reinforcing that crowd.

Funny how that framing aged.

By 2021, Paul was posting Twitter threads citing a Cleveland Clinic study that tracked over thirteen hundred unvaccinated but previously infected health care workers, finding zero reinfections over a median follow up period of nearly five months. Fact checkers pounced, insisting Paul had oversimplified a complicated picture. The Cleveland Clinic’s own lead researcher told reporters at the time that Paul’s interpretation was accurate.

Read that twice. The scientist who ran the study said Paul got it right. The fact checkers said he didn’t.

Who’s supposed to be trusted in that scenario, the person who actually collected the data or the outlet with an editorial position to defend?

Paul kept pushing anyway, sparring directly with Anthony Fauci in Senate hearings, confronting him with his own past statements on natural immunity that seemed to contradict the CDC’s blanket vaccination guidance. Democrats accused Paul of playing politics with public health. Big Tech throttled his posts. Paul later argued that a massive cover up, in his words, was the only way experts could keep denying both the science and basic immunology on the subject.

Then came the receipts nobody could spin away.

In late 2023, the Energy Department concluded that natural immunity offered protection at least as strong as vaccination, echoing an Israeli study Paul had cited more than a year earlier when he told a Senate hearing, flatly, that naturally acquired immunity is as good as a vaccine. That’s the exact claim that got him labeled a fringe voice. The federal government’s own findings eventually landed in the same place.

So where were the apologies?

They never came. Not from the outlets that called him irresponsible. Not from the colleagues who piled on in committee hearings. Not from the platforms that limited his reach for saying something that turned out to be true. That’s the pattern Paul’s recent post seems aimed at highlighting, a quiet acknowledgment that being right early doesn’t earn a correction. It just earns silence from everyone who was wrong.

Paul built his medical career as an ophthalmologist before politics, and he’s leaned on that background throughout the entire fight, treating it less like a partisan talking point and more like a stubborn insistence that the data should matter more than the messenger. It took years, a war of tweets, congressional hearings, and eventually a federal agency’s own report, but the data caught up to where Paul started.

The people who called him a conspiracy theorist are still waiting on their turn to catch up too.

Fauci looks Rand Paul in the eye and says it plainly. I have not lied before Congress. I have never lied, certainly not before Congress. Case closed, Senator Paul.

Then he tells Paul he is entirely and completely incorrect that NIH has ever funded gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Paul does not flinch. You take an animal virus and you increase its transmissibility to humans. You’re saying that’s not gain of function?

Fauci says that is correct.

Paul responds. Dr. Fauci provided millions in US taxpayer dollars to fund dangerous gain of function research on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, work which is now widely viewed as the source of the unintentional lab leak that sparked the pandemic.

Fauci’s defense. The paper was judged by qualified staff up and down the chain as not being gain of function.

That was his answer. Qualified people looked at it and said it was fine. Case closed.

Then on his final morning in office Joe Biden pardoned Anthony Fauci.

You do not pardon someone who did nothing wrong. You pardon someone you are afraid will be prosecuted. Biden knew what the classified documents showed. He knew what Tulsi Gabbard was about to release. He signed the paperwork on his way out the door.

But a presidential pardon does not cover congressional testimony. It does not protect against lying under oath to the United States Senate. And on July 29th at 10am Eastern, Rand Paul sits across from Fauci again with five years of declassified evidence that says case is not closed.

Not even close.

This newsletter covers every moment of this fight. Subscribe at 29% off forever and be here when the accountability finally arrives.

July 29th. 10am Eastern. Five years in the making.

Get 29% off forever

When there is a push from people calling for U.S. military attacks on Iran and the president chooses to use diplomacy, we see a common thread.

That theme?

Overreach that has cost us both in blood and treasure in past U.S. conflicts.

Rand Paul questions Fauci under oath on July 29th. Subscribe now at 29% off forever and get the full picture before the most anticipated hearing of the year.

Get 29% off forever

Read more

250 years ago today 56 men signed their names to a document that changed the world. They pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to back it up. Most of them paid a price for it.

They did it anyway.

Rand Paul has spent his career in that same tradition. The senator who told Fauci to his face that he was lying to Congress about funding the research that killed millions. The senator who stood alone against military spending bills, foreign aid packages, and surveillance programs that his own party lined up to support. The senator who fought birthright citizenship abuse when the Supreme Court looked the other way. The senator who warned about gain of function research years before the classified documents proved him right.

250 years of American freedom was not built by people who went along to get along. It was built by people who said what they believed when it cost them something.

Rand Paul is one of those people.

Today is July 4th. America’s 250th birthday. And the last day of the 40% off sale on this newsletter.

We chose 40% off because 40 is the number of US funded biolabs Tulsi Gabbard confirmed existed in Ukraine. Labs the government told you did not exist. Labs working with Ebola, plague, anthrax, and avian flu. Labs that Rand Paul warned about while the media called him dangerous.

He was right about those too.

This newsletter covers every fight Rand Paul takes to Washington on behalf of the country those 56 men built 250 years ago today.

40% off ends at midnight tonight. No extensions.

Happy birthday America. Upgrade your subscription before the fireworks start.

Get 40% off for 1 year

Get 40% off for 1 year

Watch the video above carefully.

Rand Paul sits across from Anthony Fauci in a Senate hearing room and tells him directly that NIH funded dangerous gain of function research on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Research that is now widely viewed as the source of the pandemic that killed millions of people around the world.

Fauci’s response. I have not lied before Congress. I have never lied, certainly not before Congress. Case closed.

Then he tells Paul he is entirely and completely incorrect.

Rand Paul calls it what it is. You are dancing around this because you are trying to obscure responsibility for four million people dying around the world from a pandemic.

The classified documents Tulsi Gabbard released on her final day as DNI confirmed what Paul had been saying for years. Fauci funded the research. The CIA’s own scientists concluded the virus came from the Wuhan lab. Fauci was briefed on that classified conclusion and steered the agency toward scientists who publicly advocated for natural origin instead. A formal whistleblower complaint alleging Fauci committed perjury before Congress was routed to his own boss rather than an independent investigator.

Case closed. That is what he said.

Then on his final morning in the White House Joe Biden pardoned Anthony Fauci.

You do not pardon someone who did nothing wrong. You pardon someone you are afraid will be prosecuted. Biden knew what was coming. He signed the paperwork on his way out the door and handed Fauci a shield against the accountability Rand Paul had been building toward for five years.

Rand Paul knew. He said so in hearing after hearing while Fauci called him wrong and the media called him dangerous. The documents proved him right. The pardon proved him right in a different way.

Tomorrow is July 4th. 250 years of a nation built on the idea that nobody is above the law. Biden just proved some people still think they are.

40% off ends tomorrow at midnight.

Upgrade your subscription today because the fight Rand Paul started is not over just because Fauci got a pardon.

Get 40% off for 1 year