Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), has received $15 million in taxpayer-funded security services since stepping down from his government role in December 2022. This revelation comes from documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by watchdog group Open the Books. The funds cover extensive security measures provided by the U.S. Marshals Service, including a protective detail and chauffeur service, underwritten by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The security arrangement, formalized in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between HHS and the U.S. Marshals Service, spanned from January 2023 to September 2024, with options for extension. This agreement outlines that the $15 million allocation includes salaries for security personnel, transportation expenses, and necessary equipment—all for a private citizen who no longer holds a government position.
Fauci, a high-profile figure during the COVID-19 pandemic, became a polarizing character, which some argue justifies the need for continued protection. However, the sheer cost of his post-retirement security has drawn criticism, particularly as it comes at a time when federal resources are already stretched thin.
The U.S. Marshals Service, traditionally tasked with protecting federal judges and tracking fugitives, has faced significant budget challenges in recent years. A 2023 Inspector General report highlighted the agency’s limited resources, noting that it struggles to adequately protect the growing number of federal judges in the U.S. judiciary system.
In response, the Marshals Service recently requested an additional $28.1 million in funding to enhance security for judges, citing the increased threat landscape. Despite these ongoing challenges, resources have been allocated to cover security for Fauci, raising questions about prioritization.
Critics argue that this diversion of funds compromises the agency’s ability to fulfill its primary mission. “We’re seeing a clear misalignment of resources,” one insider stated. “While Fauci’s protection might be justified on some level, it comes at the expense of other critical security needs, including the safety of our judiciary.”
The controversy surrounding Fauci’s security detail is amplified when compared to other public figures, such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Kennedy, a former presidential candidate and prominent public figure, has faced credible threats yet relies on privately funded security. His request for Secret Service protection was denied earlier this year, sparking debate about who qualifies for taxpayer-funded security.
Kennedy’s situation underscores what some see as a double standard. “It’s not about whether someone deserves protection,” one security analyst explained. “It’s about whether the taxpayer should foot the bill for a private citizen when others in similar or even more vulnerable positions are left to fend for themselves.”
Fauci’s defenders argue that his unique role during the pandemic made him a target for threats, necessitating continued security. During his tenure, Fauci was a leading voice in the federal government’s COVID-19 response, making him a lightning rod for criticism and, in some cases, violent rhetoric.
This revelation about Fauci’s taxpayer-funded protection reignites a broader debate about government spending and accountability. Critics of the arrangement argue that it sets a dangerous precedent, potentially opening the door for other former officials to receive similar perks.
Meanwhile, advocates for Fauci’s security detail emphasize the need to safeguard public servants who face threats due to their work. “Dr. Fauci dedicated decades of his life to public health,” one supporter noted. “If providing him with protection ensures his safety, it’s a small price to pay for his contributions.”
Still, others see the $15 million as emblematic of a bloated bureaucracy. “At a time when federal agencies are crying for more funding, we’re spending millions on someone who’s no longer in public service,” said a fiscal watchdog representative. “Taxpayers deserve transparency and justification for every dollar spent.”
As the debate continues, questions remain about how long Fauci’s security detail will persist and whether the arrangement will be extended beyond its current term. With the U.S. Marshals Service facing ongoing budget challenges, the decision to allocate resources to protect former officials like Fauci will likely come under increasing scrutiny.
For now, Fauci’s $15 million security package serves as a flashpoint in discussions about government spending, public safety, and the responsibilities owed to former public servants. Whether this level of protection will remain an exception or become a norm is a question that policymakers may soon have to address.
