Newly released text messages show Dr. Anthony Fauci warned fellow health officials that the COVID-19 vaccine could be linked to first-trimester miscarriages, nine days before he publicly told pregnant women there were "no red flags."

On January 25, 2021, Fauci sent a private text to then-CDC Director Rochelle Walensky and Surgeon General Vivek Murthy raising an alarm he never shared with the millions of American women weighing whether to roll up their sleeves. The message, pulled from a forensic copy of Fauci's government-issued cell phone and released by Republican senators, laid out a specific biological mechanism for harm.

"Since many people have significant cytokines storm and fever after the 2nd dose, this theoretically could be associated with miscarriage in the 1st trimester," Fauci wrote. Walensky's reply was immediate and agreeable: "definitely a good point, [especially] after dose two."

Neither official disclosed those concerns publicly. Instead, nine days later, on February 3, 2021, Fauci appeared on a JAMA livestream and offered pregnant women a starkly different message. The FDA, he said, had "found thus far, and we have to be careful, but thus far no red flags about that, about pregnant women."

The gap between those two statements, one private and cautious, the other public and reassuring, sits at the center of a widening Senate investigation that now involves more than 34,000 text messages and 522 voicemails stripped from Fauci's government phone. Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, both Republicans, obtained the forensic copy through the Senate Homeland Security Committee and released the first batch of messages last week.

Three officials discussed the risk, then told the country something else

The January 2021 text chain was not a one-off remark. It was a three-way conversation among the nation's top pandemic decision-makers. Murthy weighed in the next day, on January 26, texting Fauci and Walensky that he was "surprised to see WHO put out a strong like saying they [do not recommend moderna [sic] in pregnant women]."

Murthy did not side with the World Health Organization's caution. He called it "a strong statement to make and potentially quite damaging to public confidence among pregnant women." The concern, in other words, was not about the risk itself. It was about public confidence.

That framing matters. Pregnant women were not included in the original COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, a fact Just The News reported alongside the leaked texts. Officials were making public safety assurances about a population they had not formally studied, while privately acknowledging a plausible biological pathway to harm.

Walensky went further than agreeing with Fauci's miscarriage point. She also raised a separate worry in the private text chain about "mRNA causing mutations in the developing fetus," a concern that never surfaced in public guidance from any of the three officials.

Months later, Fauci's public messaging grew even more emphatic. Speaking as the Biden White House's chief medical adviser, he told the public that "tens and tens and tens of thousands of women" tracked by the CDC showed "no indication whatsoever" of increased adverse outcomes among vaccinated pregnant women compared to unvaccinated ones. His conclusion was unequivocal: "it's pretty clear that pregnant women should get vaccinated."

The distance between that declaration and the private January texts is not a matter of interpretation. Fauci identified a specific risk, cytokine storms triggering first-trimester miscarriage, and his colleagues agreed it was worth flagging. Then all three went before the public and said, in effect, nothing to worry about. The Biden administration's broader pattern of using federal power to pursue those who challenged its preferred narratives, including targeting a pro-life father who ran afoul of DOJ priorities, makes the suppression of dissenting safety concerns all the more troubling.

Johnson threatens subpoena as Fauci pleads the Fifth

Fauci has so far refused to answer questions about the texts or the broader pandemic response under oath. At a July 29 hearing before the Senate Homeland Security Committee, he invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to avoid answering questions about COVID-19 and gain-of-function research supported by U.S. grants.

Sen. Paul responded by referring Fauci for criminal prosecution. The referral, sent earlier this month, was based on Fauci's refusal to testify. Paul has also accused Fauci and his assistants of deleting federal records, an allegation that gained weight when emails surfaced showing U.S. public health higher-ups had asked for the deletion of some records.

Johnson, appearing on Fox News' "America Reports," made clear he is not waiting for Fauci to volunteer:

"We've invited Anthony Fauci now for a transcribed interview. He's been quoted as saying he's not afraid of congressional oversight. He'll talk to any oversight committee; he's got nothing to hide; so we're going to give him that opportunity."

Johnson added that Fauci is "the only guy that can answer some of these questions" and warned that if Fauci's attorneys do not arrange a voluntary appearance, "I will subpoena him."

The senators' investigation is still in its early stages. The first batch of released texts covers just eleven messages from January 25, 26, 2021, the Washington Examiner reported. More than 34,000 remain to be reviewed. Fauci's government phone contained only three contacts, and senators say it is "too early to determine whether any data has been deleted."

Deleted records and a CDC official under scrutiny

The question of destroyed evidence extends beyond Fauci himself. Johnson has publicly accused Dr. Tom Shimabukuro, the former director of the CDC's Immunization Safety Office, of deleting emails related to adverse COVID vaccine reactions. The full scope of those allegations remains unclear, but they fit a pattern: officials who oversaw the pandemic response now face questions about whether they scrubbed the paper trail behind them.

Johnson framed the stakes bluntly. His office stated that the released text chain "could have an immediate impact on public health and the principle of informed consent." That principle, the right of patients to know what risks their doctors are aware of before agreeing to a medical procedure, is the thread that ties the private texts to a question far larger than any single politician's conduct. When public officials face allegations of personal misconduct, accountability demands transparency, not silence.

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill put the frustration of vaccine skeptics in plain terms. "We were being told that we were anti-vaxxers and that we were liars who were trying to cause people to die from COVID," she told Breitbart. The newly released texts suggest that the people doing the name-calling held private doubts of their own.

President Trump, asked Monday whether he had discussed Fauci's potential prosecution with Attorney General Todd Blanche or DC U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, said simply: "I have not spoken to them about that, no."

Johnson, for his part, signaled the investigation is far from over. "While I've been conducting oversight for years, now that we have the documents and Fauci's government-issued phone, my investigation has only just begun," he said.

Informed consent required honesty they chose not to give

The core issue is not whether the COVID-19 vaccine ultimately proved dangerous for every pregnant woman. It is whether the officials responsible for guiding the nation's health decisions withheld a known concern from the people who needed it most. Fauci identified a plausible risk. Walensky agreed. Murthy worried about public confidence. And then all three told pregnant women the coast was clear.

Informed consent does not work when the people holding the information decide the public cannot handle it. Millions of pregnant women made medical decisions during 2021 based on official reassurances that now appear, at minimum, incomplete. Whether those reassurances were merely careless or deliberately misleading is exactly the question Fauci is refusing to answer under oath.

A man who says he has nothing to hide should not need the Fifth Amendment to prove it.