Pardon May Prompt More Questions Than It Solves, Says DeSantis

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis recently weighed in on former President Joe Biden’s reported preemptive pardons, particularly one granted to Dr. Anthony Fauci. During a press conference, DeSantis addressed the broader implications such a decision might have, especially at the state level.

The topic came up when a reporter asked whether state-level legal proceedings could still apply, even after a federal pardon. DeSantis acknowledged the point as a “good question” and suggested that rather than shielding Fauci from scrutiny, the move might actually invite more of it.

He pointed to a recent report from the Department of Government Efficiency—an initiative led by entrepreneur Elon Musk—which uncovered an expense of $180,000 for a commemoration of Fauci at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). DeSantis questioned the reasoning behind such a tribute, saying, “What exactly are we commemorating?”

In his remarks, the governor emphasized that public health responses during the pandemic should be open to critical review. “At best,” DeSantis said, “he [Fauci] made significant errors when the country needed leadership the most.”

He also questioned the optics of Fauci’s extensive media presence during the health crisis. “It seemed like he was constantly on television. It made me wonder whether he was spending enough time looking at data.”

DeSantis suggested that by issuing a preemptive pardon, the federal government may have unintentionally spurred interest from state authorities. “Had Biden not taken this step, state attorneys general might have stayed out of it,” he said. “But now, it’s more likely that state investigations could take shape.”

He further explained that if federal charges had been pursued in Washington, D.C., the outcomes might have been influenced by local biases. However, state-level investigations could present different legal landscapes, with more diverse jury pools and different prosecutorial priorities.

DeSantis speculated that Florida and possibly other states might now consider initiating their own inquiries. “I don’t think we’ve seen the end of this. I would not be surprised if our attorney general takes a closer look, and other states might follow,” he said.

While DeSantis’ remarks drew attention, he was not alone in questioning the broader implications of such pardons. Journalist Matt Taibbi, speaking on a podcast last month, echoed similar concerns.

Taibbi noted that some legal experts believe preemptive pardons could backfire in unexpected ways. “Once a pardon is issued, the recipient can no longer invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination,” he explained. “That means if they’re called to testify in a congressional hearing or before a grand jury, they must answer questions.”

The journalist also remarked that these legal dynamics might unintentionally create more transparency instead of less. “By trying to shield individuals, the administration may have inadvertently made it easier to uncover details of what really happened,” he said.

In related discussions, questions were raised about whether state-level legal proceedings could proceed despite federal pardons. While presidential pardons apply to federal crimes, they do not prevent states from pursuing investigations under their own laws, depending on the nature of the allegations and the evidence available.

The broader context of the discussion reflects a growing public interest in accountability, particularly in how government leaders and agencies handled critical moments during the pandemic. Whether the pardon results in fewer investigations or more remains to be seen.

As state officials weigh their next steps, it’s clear the conversation about leadership, responsibility, and transparency in public health is far from over.