RFK Jr Suggests Fauci Pardoned for Role in COVID Origins
Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is once again sounding the alarm on the government’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic—this time accusing former NIAID Director Dr. Anthony Fauci of playing a direct role in the virus’s origins and claiming he may have received a quiet pardon for that responsibility.
During a recent interview shared by Gateway Hispanic, Kennedy alleged that Fauci was shielded from prosecution due to his deep involvement in the U.S. government’s funding of gain-of-function research. “They had to pardon him,” Kennedy said plainly. “Because he bears a lot of the responsibility for creating the pandemic.” His comments add fuel to long-standing suspicions on the right that Dr. Fauci, rather than being a hero of the pandemic, may have helped unleash it.
Kennedy has been among the few public figures from either side of the aisle who has consistently challenged the mainstream COVID-19 narrative. He has criticized the U.S. government’s lockdown policies, vaccine mandates, and suppression of alternative treatments. But now, he is going a step further—suggesting criminal liability that has been swept under the rug.
“Dr. Fauci was instrumental in bypassing restrictions on gain-of-function research here in the U.S. and outsourcing it to the Wuhan lab in China,” Kennedy claimed. “That research, funded by American tax dollars, very likely resulted in the creation of SARS-CoV-2.” These accusations align with mounting evidence that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was experimenting with coronaviruses and that safety protocols were lacking.
While the Biden administration and many in the media continue to dismiss the lab-leak theory, prominent voices—including FBI Director Christopher Wray and a report from the Department of Energy—have acknowledged the possibility that the virus did, in fact, originate from a laboratory. That hasn’t stopped the political left from labeling any such discussion as “misinformation,” despite increasing scientific and circumstantial support.
Kennedy also pointed out what many conservatives see as a glaring double standard in accountability. “If a private citizen were responsible for contributing to a global catastrophe that killed millions and destroyed economies, would they be free to retire comfortably and make book deals?” Kennedy asked rhetorically. “Or would they face legal scrutiny?”
In recent weeks, speculation has intensified over Fauci’s legal future. Although there is no public record of a pardon, some are now suggesting that immunity deals may have been quietly offered to high-level bureaucrats involved in pandemic-era decisions. The lack of transparency surrounding these decisions has only added to public distrust.
Fauci’s recent closed-door testimony before Congress, in which he admitted that the six-foot distancing rule “just sort of appeared,” and confessed to little scientific backing behind some mandates, has only intensified scrutiny. Conservatives see these admissions as signs of deception at the highest levels.
“This is exactly what we feared all along,” said a Republican aide familiar with House COVID oversight. “That unelected official, under the guise of public health, exercised unchecked power, manipulated the truth, and now want to walk away without consequences.”
From a constitutional and Christian conservative perspective, the implications of Kennedy’s claims are troubling. They suggest that powerful officials can operate with impunity while Americans pay the price—financially, emotionally, and spiritually. The erosion of trust in government, science, and media has created fertile ground for skepticism and the demand for accountability.
Kennedy’s statements also speak to a broader issue that many conservatives have highlighted: the weaponization of public institutions. While some government figures are pursued relentlessly for their political affiliations or social media posts, others appear to be immune from consequences, no matter how serious the allegations.
The idea that Fauci may have been “pardoned” without public knowledge underscores concerns that the administrative state protects its own. If true, such a pardon would represent a stunning abuse of executive power—bypassing justice in order to protect a deeply entrenched elite.
For faith-based voters, the deeper moral question lingers: What happens when truth is sacrificed for convenience or control? Kennedy’s accusations demand a reevaluation not only of how the pandemic was handled but of who holds power in a crisis—and how that power is wielded.
Despite his progressive lineage, Kennedy has become a surprising voice of reason to many conservatives on matters of transparency, medical freedom, and constitutional integrity. His critique of Fauci may resonate especially with Christian voters who felt the spiritual toll of shuttered churches, broken communities, and isolation during the pandemic.
If Fauci indeed received a pardon—formal or informal—then Americans deserve to know. Justice, after all, should not depend on one’s connections or federal position. And as Kennedy put it, “We can’t move forward as a nation until we know the truth about how this pandemic really started—and who profited from it.”
The American people were promised answers. What they got instead were mandates, media censorship, and shifting narratives. Kennedy’s challenge to the system could force open long-shut doors, and many on the right believe it’s long past time.
With November looming and voters hungry for honesty and accountability, Fauci’s legacy—and any secret deals surrounding it—may still become a defining issue of the 2024 election.