House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan,  R-Ohio, sent a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray on Monday alleging that the FBI has failed to comply with congressional subpoenas and warning to take action if they do not follow through by next week. 

The letter specifically cited two subpoenas sent by the committee, one that was ‘Regarding School Board-related Threats’ and its subpoena on ‘Catholic Domain Perspective.’

In the letter, Jordan called the FBI’s actions ‘unacceptable’ and set a new date and time — noon on July 25, 2023 — for the requested materials. If the FBI does not deliver, the committee ‘will take action’ such as holding Wray in contempt of Congress, he said.

‘To date, the FBI’s compliance with these subpoenas has been wholly inadequate and has materially impeded the Committee’s oversight efforts,’ Jordan said in the letter, dated July 17. ‘After several accommodations, months of persistent outreach by the Committee, and attempts to negotiate and work with the FBI in good faith, we write to notify you that if the FBI does not improve its compliance substantially, the Committee will take action—such as the initiation of contempt of Congress proceedings—to obtain compliance with these subpoenas.’

The first subpoena mentioned in the letter concerns FBI surveillance of parents at school board meetings in Virginia who expressed outrage over changes to schools’ curriculums, the promotion of race-based education and the district allegedly covering up sexual misconduct.

‘The Committee on the Judiciary is continuing its oversight of the programs and operations of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Of particular interest to the Committee is the FBI’s weaponization of its law-enforcement powers against Americans who exercise their First Amendment rights. On February 3, 2023, the Committee issued a subpoena to you for documents and information regarding the FBI’s targeting of concerned parents who speak out at school board meetings,’ Jordan said to Wray.

The Republican chairman said the FBI failed to volunteer information, so the committee issued an initial subpoena on Feb 3 for documents relating to investigative efforts into parents.

By the March 1 deadline, the FBI handed over a mere four documents.

The committee then instructed the bureau to hand over the documents on a rolling basis, and it turned over eight documents by March 8. An additional 364 documents were made available via camera.

‘Following the limited production on March 8, Committee staff participated in phone calls with the FBI’s Office of General Counsel (OGC) on March 13 and March 16, about the FBI’s compliance with the Committee’s oversight,’ Chairman Jordan said in Monday’s letter. ‘On those calls, Committee staff reiterated that the FBI was not in compliance with the subpoena and queried OGC as to when the Committee, consistent with its accommodation in accepting a rolling production, could expect the next tranche of documents responsive to the subpoena. No specific dates for the next production could be provided by OGC.’

The second subpoena concerns an eight-page memo leaked by former FBI agent Kyle Seraphin, which said the FBI and the Department of Justice were specifically investigating the actions of ‘radical traditionalist’ Catholics and alleged connections to ‘the far-right white nationalist movement.’

The House Judiciary Committee formally requested documents from the FBI on Feb. 16 concerning the ‘FBI’s assessment of traditional Catholic Americans as domestic violent extremists based on their religious beliefs.’

However, those documents never arrived, Jordan said.

The committee requested the documents again during a hearing on March 9, and Assistant Attorney General Uriarte said under oath that the FBI would be ‘responding to this committee in the coming weeks’ and information would be ‘forthcoming soon.’

On March 23, the FBI provided the committee’s members only 18 pages ‘many with significant redactions,’ Jordan said.

On April 10, the House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena for the outstanding documents, and by the time an April 28 deadline came, the FBI had handed over 248 pages to the committee.

Jordan explained in Monday’s letter that this was insufficient.

‘The FBI did not produce an unredacted version of the memorandum or any documents or communications concerning the process of drafting, reviewing, approving, or disseminating the memorandum — information that the subpoena compelled the FBI to produce,’ he wrote.

Fox News’ Tyler Olson contributed to this report.

–>

FIRST ON FOX: Two House Republicans are demanding that the Biden administration release Climate Envoy John Kerry’s flight records to determine how much was spent on military flights and the carbon emissions from any travel he took on private jets.

Kerry is facing a new wave GOP-led criticism after a congressional hearing last week where he insisted he ‘personally’ has ‘never owned a private jet’ but admitted to taking five military flights since joining the Biden administration.

‘As you know, chartered Military Aircraft (MILAIR) flights are much more costly than flying commercial, and the use of such flights by past presidential cabinet officials have drawn heavy scrutiny for its abuse of taxpayer allocated funds,’ Rep. Mike Waltz, R-Fla., wrote to Secretary of State Antony Blinken. The letter, obtained by Fox News Digital, was co-led by GOP Reps. Brian Mast and Cory Mills of Florida.

‘SPE Kerry testified in that hearing  that, ‘I have flown five times in the last two-and-a-half years on MILAIR.’ What were the exceptional circumstances that required the use of this aircraft?’ the lawmakers asked.

The letter also questioned Kerry’s admission during the hearing that he used a private jet ‘maybe once’ in his current role as climate envoy.

‘Was this flight in his official role?’ it asked. ‘If so, did the State Department consider the carbon emissions of private jet use when approving this travel, particularly in light of SPE Kerry’s current mandate?’

‘Kerry also agreed to hand over all his official travel records. This is very welcome, since State’s perceived lack of transparency on his activity has been a key area of concern for my colleagues and I on the committee,’ the letter stated. ‘Not only is there no website for SPE Kerry’s office on the official State Department web page, but the identities of his staff – from the most senior to the most junior – were completely unknown before our hearing on July 13.’

‘Therefore, we request that you turn over all flight records including commercial, MILAIR, and private travel that were paid with federal funds since the beginning of Special Envoy Kerry’s tenure by August 1, 2023. We also request you turn over Special Envoy Kerry meeting records with foreign officials since he took office as special envoy,’ the wrote.

Fox News Digital reached out to a representative for Kerry at the State Department for an estimate of how much his five MILAIR flights would have cost.

In his letter, Waltz pointed to past reporting that accused Trump administration Health Secretary Tom Price of using MILAIR flights for multiple multi-national trips at a $500,000 cost to taxpayers.

At last week’s House hearing, Kerry fumed that the claim he used a private jet to conduct official business ‘one of the most outrageously persistent lies that I hear.’

But while he claimed to never personally owned a private jet, a Fox News Digital report from last year found that Kerry’s family jet, which has since been sold, made more than 60 trips between President Biden’s swearing in and the time of publishing.

Financier George Soros and his son Alex provided maximum donations to President Biden’s campaign during the second quarter, filings show.

The father and son duo each cut $6,600 checks to Biden’s re-election committee on June 30, according to its recently released records. The cash represents their first jump into the 2024 presidential election. 

Neither has given money to Biden’s Victory Fund so far this cycle – which carries astronomical contribution limits – though that will presumably change as the election draws closer. 

Both George and Alex Soros will likely provide considerable amounts directly to Biden’s re-election efforts and support outside super PACs backing his candidacy after helping to propel him during the 2020 elections.

During the last presidential race, Alex Soros provided the Biden Victory Fund with over $720,000, while George Soros added more than $500,000 to the committee’s coffers. The two also maxed out donations to Biden’s campaign that election cycle.

The newest Biden donations occurred weeks after George Soros announced he had handed Alex control of his massive Open Society Foundations network, which funnels large sums to left-wing initiatives across the country.

Alex, meanwhile, has maintained a direct pipeline to Biden’s White House and has visited at least 20 times since he took office, Fox News Digitial previously reported. He’s also posted recent photos with Vice President Kamala Harris.

Soros’ spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the donations.

The House last week passed a defense policy bill that strongly encourages the Pentagon to use artificial intelligence to its advantage, but also requires defense officials to examine how America’s national security infrastructure may be vulnerable to AI systems deployed by China, Russia and other adversaries.

Rep. Marc Molinaro, R-N.Y., pushed to include language in the bill requiring an assessment of AI vulnerabilities, and watched it pass easily on the House floor. That’s a strong sign the language will remain in the final bill even after a negotiation with the Senate, and Molinaro told Fox News Digital that this assessment is needed in the face of ever-evolving AI capabilities.

‘The average person knows at least the rudimentary use of AI. China, terrorists, Russia are using AI in a much more sophisticated way, certainly as aggressors,’ he told Fox news Digital.

‘DOD has to catch up,’ he added. ‘We have to as a government advance ourselves in an effective way to protect the American people, and we know that AI is the next platform of military interaction that can be weaponized.’

Molinaro’s amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) requires the Defense Department to identify ‘potential vulnerabilities in the military systems and infrastructure of the United States that could be exploited by adversarial artificial intelligence applications’ used by China, Russia and others.

This addition passed easily in a voice vote, signaling clear support from both Republicans and Democrats. Molinaro said forcing DOD to look at itself in the mirror is critical in part because AI is evolving so quickly.

‘I am well aware that DOD is aware of the capacity and certainly the steps that others are taking to make use of AI, but we have to be very specific as to what are the vulnerabilities and how do we react, respond and protect ourselves from it,’ he said.

‘AI evolves, that’s the point, and so we have to evolve with it,’ he added.

Molinaro’s language in a sense requires a defensive posture at the Pentagon, in a bill that otherwise encourages the offensive use of AI. Among other things, the bill encourages the Navy to incorporate AI into its logistics plan, pushes the Army to develop autonomous combat vehicles and asks the whole department to research how AI can be used to bolster U.S. national security.

The House is also looking at spending bills that encourage other national security agencies to use AI in everything from routine office work to managing port security. But Molinaro’s language requires officials to examine where foreign AI systems post a ‘real national security risk.’

While there has been talk all year of a comprehensive bill to regulate AI, Molinaro said he and many other members clearly support the idea of making sure the U.S. is not waiting for that bill before it explores how to use AI to its national security advantage.

‘We’re certainly well aware that AI can be used as an effective tool and must be used as an effective tool,’ he said. ‘The base text of the NDAA acknowledges that, and I support that.’

His amendment to the bill could also be an early glimpse at how Congress ultimately regulates AI. Instead of chasing after a grand regulatory framework, Congress might instead take smaller bites when it can, an idea Molinaro supports.

‘I do think that too often… we think too broadly and accomplish very little,’ he said. ‘We may end up incrementally getting there, which sometimes gets us to the goal much quicker than negotiating some broad piece of action that will often get shelved.’

A prosecutor added felony charges, including attempted sexual assault, Monday against a man accused of attacking Connecticut’s first Muslim state representative after a prayer service, but did not file hate crime allegations demanded by the lawmaker’s supporters.

The case of Andrey Desmond, 30, went before a judge in Hartford Superior Court, where supporters of state Rep. Maryam Khan, including local imams, also gathered.

‘It continues to be a mystery to me why the state isn’t bringing bias crimes in this type of incident,’ said Farhan Memon, chairman of the Connecticut chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. ‘Having this charged as a bias crime sends a message out to the rest of the population that this is going to be something that’s dealt with seriously.’

Hartford State’s Attorney Sharmese Walcott did not return messages seeking comment about the case and the demand to file hate crime allegations.

During the hearing, Walcott said the additional charges were the result of a review of all evidence gathered by Hartford police, including video footage and ‘a clear statement by the defendant … that he intended to force sexual contact,’ according to audio of the hearing provided by the court system.

‘The statement of sexual intent that Andrey Desmond made was in the presence of three children, all under the age of 16,’ Wolcott said, adding the children suffered mental trauma.

Desmond was initially charged with misdemeanors, including third-degree assault and unlawful restraint, after the June 28 attack on Khan outside a Hartford arena where the Muslim prayer service was held. Walcott on Monday added felony charges of attempted third-degree sexual assault, second-degree assault, strangulation and risk of injury to children.

Desmond remains detained on $250,000 bail and is scheduled to return to court Aug. 22. His public defender, Michael Wagner, did not return messages. Wagner did not respond to the allegations during the court hearing, according to the audio. He requested copies of supplemental police reports.

Desmond, who has not entered pleas, was brought to the courthouse lockup, but did not appear in the courtroom for the hearing.

Khan, a Democrat who lives in the Hartford suburb of Windsor, has said she and her family were taking photos outside the arena when a man approached and said he ‘intended to have sexual relations’ with one of them, including Khan’s 15-year-old daughter. Her family was marking Eid al-Adha, the end of the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage by Muslims to Mecca.

Desmond then followed them inside and Khan said he started to pursue her in particular, grabbing at her face and shirt and demanding a kiss. He followed her back outside and tried to grab her face again, she said, but became angry when she ‘dodged him’ and slapped her across the face. She said he later held her in a ‘chokehold’ and held up his hand and mimicked having a gun before slamming her into the ground.

‘I knew in that moment my body went numb, and I thought I was going to die,’ she said at a news conference earlier this month.

Khan said she was diagnosed with a concussion and injured her right arm and shoulder.

The Associated Press doesn’t generally identify people who report attempted sexual assaults unless they publicly identify themselves, as Khan has done.

Desmond was chased down and held by two bystanders until police arrived and arrested him.

Khan did not return an email message seeking comment. Memon said she attended Monday’s court hearing.

She has accused Hartford police of downplaying the assault and called for a federal investigation of the department’s handling of violent crimes, especially against women.

A police spokesman did not return a message Monday.

Hartford Police Chief Jason Thody has expressed his sympathy for Khan and said the department will review its response to the attack.

<!–>

–>

National Security Council spokesman John Kirby launched an impassioned defense of abortion funding for service members and their families on Monday, pounding the podium of the White House press briefing room as he called military access to abortion a ‘foundational, sacred obligation.’

The instance occurred when Kirby was asked by a reporter during the daily White House press briefing, what about the Pentagon’s controversial policy for it to use taxpayer funds to reimburse the cost of travel and care related to abortions was ‘critical to military readiness.’

‘Our policies, whether they’re diversity, inclusion, and equity or whether they’re about transgender individuals who qualify physically and mentally, deserve to be able to [serve] with dignity. Or whether it’s about female service members – one in five – or female family members being able to count on the kinds of health care and reproductive care specifically that they need to serve,’ Kirby said.

‘That is a foundational, sacred obligation of military leaders across the river. I’ve seen it myself. And it matters because it says we’re invested in you, because you are being willing to invest in us. You’re investing your life, your family’s livelihood with us. We owe you that back in return,’ he said.

Kirby argued that anyone who signs up to serve – and potentially lose their lives while serving – has ‘every right’ to expect the military to ‘take care’ of them, regardless of ‘who you are, who you love, or how you worship or don’t.’

He described meeting an all female group of service members and spouses who he said told him that abortion restrictions being passed in states across the country were ‘absolutely having an effect on their willingness to continue serving in uniform or to encourage or discourage, in this case, their spouses from continuing service.’

‘So if you don’t think there’s going to be a retention and a morale issue, think again, because it’s already having that effect,’ Kirby said, adding that he has a son and son-in-law currently serving in the Navy who love serving, but don’t get to serve where they choose and have to follow orders on where to go and what to do. 

‘You go where you’re told. That’s the way orders work. You go where you’re assigned. You don’t get to choose. And so what happens if you get assigned to a state like Alabama, which has a pretty restrictive abortion law in place, and you’re concerned about your reproductive care, what do you do? Do you say no and get out?’ he said.

Kirby said service members being faced with that option and choosing to leave meant the military was losing talent and making an already tough recruiting environment worse.

‘It can have an extremely, extremely significant impact on our recruiting and retention. Not to mention it’s just the right darn thing to do for people that raise their hand and agree to serve in the military,’ he added.

Kirby’s comments come as the debate over military funding for abortions continues to be waged in Congress, with Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., holding firm to his commitment to block all top military promotions and nominations as long as the Pentagon’s abortion policy remains in place.

In the Senate, one senator can hold up anything.

And, in the Senate, a determined supermajority of senators can overcome a blockade erected by that sole senator on a nomination or a piece of legislation.

It simply takes time.

That aforementioned supermajority can thwart the tactics of the lone senator bottlenecking the parliamentary traffic. Eventually. Senators must file ‘cloture’ and later ‘invoke’ cloture. That’s the Senate term for overcoming a filibuster. And if senators can cobble together a coalition of 60 of their colleagues on legislation or just 51 for a nomination, the singular senator filibustering the issue at hand is blocking things on borrowed Senate time.

But what happens when a single senator holds up an entire slate of nominees? Or, in this case, the routine promotions of 250 military flag officers? These are the top military leaders in the country.

That’s what unfolded over the past few months. Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., is blocking the promotions as a protest over the Pentagon’s abortion policy. Following last year’s Dobbs Supreme Court decision, the Pentagon implemented a plan that would give pregnant women on the armed forces health care plan time off to travel across state lines for abortions. A number of states imposed strict limitations on abortion in light of the Dobbs opinion. Service members can’t control where they’re assigned to serve. So the Pentagon put forth a policy which would give women the opportunity to receive reproductive health care if they so chose.

Tuberville’s move prevented the Marine Corps from having a Commandant.

Marine Commandant Gen. David Berger stepped down a few weeks ago. Gen. Eric Smith is up for the job. But he’s only the acting Commandant since the Senate hasn’t been able to advance his promotion due to Tuberville’s roadblock. The Senate just conducted a confirmation hearing for Air Force Chief of Staff. Gen. Charles Q. Brown to become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — the top military post in the U.S. However, Brown’s matriculation could fall victim to Tuberville’s hold later this year.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin spoke to Tuberville about his holds last week. But it’s unclear if they can bridge the impasse.

Let’s now examine the parliamentary mechanics of Tuberville’s ‘holds’ for the armed forces.

There is no ‘rule’ in the Senate which addresses ‘holds’ on nominations or promotions. It’s kind of a Senate custom. But, truly a ‘hold’ in the Senate is ‘withholding consent.’ In other words, Tuberville is telling other senators that he won’t allow votes on the promotions of senior military officers quickly. Thus, the senator is ‘withholding consent.’ 

So let’s explore the question of ‘consent’ in the Senate.

The Senate typically regards a swath of military promotions of this caliber as ‘non-controversial.’ The Senate, Pentagon and the administration have already vetted the service personnel tapped for these positions. It’s rare that senators would find a red flag at this stage which could sidetrack a promotion. Thus, the Senate often advances the promotions ‘en bloc.’

In other words, the Senate takes a batch of the promotions — if not all — and considers them simultaneously. It’s the most efficient way to move.

Promotions of this nature are subject to one round of cloture.’ In other words, one filibuster. And since we are dealing with a ‘nomination’ (promotion), only a simple majority is necessary in the Senate to overcome a filibuster (usually 51 yeas).

Confirmation of the promotion would come next. That also entails a simple majority.

More than 250 military promotions are pending. But doing them one by one could really start to chew into the Senate’s schedule. Floor time is the most important commodity in the Senate. The more time the Senate burns on promotion, the less time is has to address other nominations – let alone legislation.

Here’s the process:

Let’s say this all begins on a Monday. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., calls up a single nomination/promotion on the floor. Tuberville would indicate he intends to filibuster — not granting consent. So Schumer would immediately ‘file cloture’ on that individual nomination/promotion. By rule, the Senate requires an ‘intervening day’ before it may vote on ‘invoking cloture’ or breaking Tuberville’s filibuster. 

So Tuesday serves as the intervening day. Cloture ‘ripens’ for a vote on Wednesday. If the Senate secures a majority to overcome the filibuster on Wednesday, Tuberville and other senators then have the right to require the Senate incinerate another portion of time before a final vote to confirm the nomination or promotion. Thus, the Senate may not actually vote to approve the promotion until Thursday or so.

So, so each nomination may take about four to five days — depending on what time of day the process started.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Jack Reed, D-R.I., recently excoriated Tuberville for the time burn. 

‘The senator from Alabama often says if we really wanted these generals and admirals, we would just vote. But I’d like to explain that the senator is now allowing a simple vote. He is demanding cloture on every nomination,’ said Reed.

The Rhode Island Democrat then explained how his staff commissioned the Congressional Research Service (CRS) to figure how much time the Senate would consume, processing each promotion singularly. Reed says the CRS determine if the Senate did nothing but these military promotions and worked around the clock, it would consume ‘668 hours’ or ’27 days.’ If the Senate devoted eight hours of its day just to military promotions, the process would devour 84 consecutive days.

‘So just vote is not an answer,’ snapped Reed. ‘This is not a feasible solution.’

 This is why the Senate often gets ‘consent’ — or, as it’s known on Capitol Hill ‘unanimous consent’ — from all 100 senators to advance a slate of non-controversial nominees or promotions together. This is ‘en bloc.’ But the catch is that all 100 senators must be in agreement.

Provided all 100 senators are on board, the Senate Majority Leader often often tees up a unanimous consent request which hurdles the filibuster bar and even confirms the nominations/promotions all at once. But if a single senator objects, the gig is up.

This expedited process may still happen on a large chunk of nominations/promotions — even if a senator has a reservation about one or two particular people. If a senator insists, the Senate might then just vote on that individual nomination/promotion. 

This is why Tuberville’s decision to withhold consent is important. He’s applying his senatorial prerogative toward more than 250 flag officers up for promotion all at once. Not just an individual officer.

Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, recently placed holds on all of President Biden’s nominees for the Justice Department in retaliation for the prosecution of former President Trump.

Both Tuberville and Vance are well within their rights as senators to engineer this gambit — even if it’s a rarely utilized one. That’s especially true with the case of Tuberville, applying this toward a bundle of routine promotions.

Floor time is paramount in the Senate. Tuberville has capitalized on an issue important to him. And unless the Senate wants to carbonize weeks and weeks on routine, non-controversial promotions, Tuberville is so far prevailing in his protest over the military’s abortion policy.

New legislation proposed in the House would remove the words ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ from federal law and replace them with a range of terms such as ‘spouse.’

The ‘Amend the Code for Marriage Equality Act,’ introduced by California Democrat Julia Brownley, seeks to amend a number of existing laws by striking the terms ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ from their text. The proposed legislation moves to substitute the words with phrases such as ‘a married couple,’ ‘married person’ and ‘person who has been, but is no longer, married to’’ depending on the context.

‘Although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex couples have the right to marry, there are many instances where the U.S. Code does not respect that constitutional right,’ Brownley said in a statement released on Friday.

‘Now more than ever, with an extreme Supreme Court and state legislatures rolling back the rights of the LGBTQ community, it is imperative that Congress showcases its commitment to supporting equality,’ she continued. ‘This common-sense bill will ensure that our federal code reflects the equality of all marriages by recognizing and acting upon the notion that the words in our laws have meaning and our values as a country are reflected in our laws.’

Federal laws targeted for amendment in Brownley’s bill include the ‘Ethics in Government Act of 1978,’ the ‘Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993’ and the ‘Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971,’ among others.

Fox News Digital contacted Brownley’s office for additional comment but did not hear back in time for publication.

A recent Supreme Court ruling in a case that pitted the interests of LGBTQ non-discrimination against First Amendment freedom was seen by the left as a blow to LGBTQ+ rights that amplified calls to expand the court.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the majority, along with Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, in the 6-3 decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. Sotomayor called the ruling ‘a new license to discriminate,’ arguing that the ‘symbolic effect of the decision is to mark gays and lesbians for second-class status.’

She mentioned a number of instances of anti-LGTBQ discrimination and violence in her opinion. Justice Neil Gorsuch dismissed Sotomayor’s dissent by saying it ‘gets so turned around about the facts that it opens fire on its own position.’

He added that it is ‘difficult to read the dissent and conclude we are looking at the same case.’

Fox News’ Brianna Herlihy contributed to this report.

PROGRAMMING ALERT: Senator Rand Paul will join Jesse Watters Primetime at 8pm to react 

Despite his retirement from public service, U.S. tax dollars are being spent on protective details for Dr. Anthony Fauci and his family – courtesy of U.S. Marshals, documents obtained by Jesse Watters Primetime reveal. 

The Health and Human Services was set to end its protection of Fauci, and the U.S. Marshals assumed protective responsibilities on Jan. 5, 2023, per an agreement with the National Institutes of Health. 

Emails reviewed by Fox News show a brief correspondence with the White House concerning Dr. Fauci’s parking during a visit on Feb. 1, 2023. The nature of the visit was not clear. 

In another email, a redacted name from the U.S. Marshals responds to three individuals at the NIAID/NIH, telling them that ‘inappropriate communications referring to Dr. Fauci’ can be sent to the Justice Department. 

The revelations come after Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., sent a letter last month to HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, his department’s Inspector General, and the current head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Paul requested ‘additional information regarding Dr. Fauci’s employment status and receipt of taxpayer-funded benefits.’ 

‘While many interpreted these statements to mean Dr. Fauci would be ending his employment with the federal government in December 2022, it is not clear if that is in fact the case,’ Paul wrote.

‘This raises questions about Dr. Fauci’s current employment status and whether he is still receiving certain taxpayer-funded benefits associated with active public service, such as legal counsel and protective services,’ the senator added.

A Capitol Hill source previously told Fox News Digital that the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee – of which Paul is the top Republican – was meant to be notified whether Fauci’s security status ended at the end of his employment with the administration, or if was extended somehow. The source said the panel has not heard anything from the administration six months after Fauci said he was done. 

Dr. Fauci, who led the NIAID and was the highest-paid bureaucrat on the federal government’s payroll, announced his retirement in August 2022, after more than five decades in office. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Fauci became a household name and the subject of partisan attacks. He made frequent appearances on television news and at daily press conferences. He officially stepped down in December 2022. 

In his letter last month, Sen. Paul, who has had a combative relationship with Dr. Fauci, said was ‘not clear’ if Dr. Fauci would indeed be ending his employment with the federal government. 

‘This raises questions about Dr. Fauci’s current status and whether he is still receiving certain taxpayer-funded benefits associated with active public service, such as legal counsel and protective services,’ the senator wrote.  

Paul’s letter also asked whether Dr. Fauci still had access to non-public government facilities and if he is getting any legal or security services from the government. 

Fox News’ Elizabeth Elkind contributed to this report. 

The former FBI agent who served as the supervisor of the federal investigation into Hunter Biden at the IRS confirmed key portions of the whistleblower testimony concerning alleged political interference by the Biden administration into the investigation, Republicans on the House Oversight Committee said Monday.

‘Today, a former FBI supervisory special agent assigned to the FBI’s Wilmington office and the Biden criminal investigation confirmed key portions of the IRS whistleblower’s testimony,’ Committee Chair Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., said in a statement.

‘The night before the interview of Hunter Biden, both Secret Service headquarters and the Biden transition team were tipped off about the planned interview. On the day of the Hunter Biden interview, federal agents were told to stand by and could not approach Hunter Biden—they had to wait for his call. As a result of the change in plans, IRS and FBI criminal investigators never got to interview Hunter Biden as part of the investigation,’ Comer said.

He added that the DOJ’s ‘efforts to cover up for the Bidens’ showed there was ‘a two-tiered system of justice,’ and vowed the committee would ‘continue to seek the answers, transparency, and accountability that the American people demand and deserve.’

The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley and the second anonymous whistleblower leveling the accusations of DOJ interference in the investigation appeared before the panel earlier Monday.

The whistleblowers have said decisions in the case seemed to be ‘influenced by politics.’ They also alleged federal prosecutors blocked lines of questioning related to President Biden, and said the U.S. attorney in charge of the probe, David Weiss, did not have full authority to bring charges.

The testimony comes as the committee investigates the Biden family’s business dealings.

‘Since taking the gavel in January, the Committee on Oversight and Accountability has made rapid progress in our investigation into the Biden family’s domestic and international business dealings to determine whether these activities compromise U.S. national security and President Biden’s ability to lead with impartiality,’ Comer said in a statement last week. 

‘From the thousands of financial records we’ve obtained, we know the Biden family set up over 20 shell companies, engaged in intentionally complicated financial transactions with foreign adversaries, and made a concerted effort to hide the payments and avoid scrutiny.’

Comer said the whistleblowers have confirmed ‘many findings of our investigation,’ and stressed the importance of hearing from them, and other witnesses, about the ‘weaponization of federal law enforcement power.’

Monday’s testimony came amid a joint-congressional investigation with the Oversight Committee, Judiciary Committee and House Ways and Means Committee into the federal probe into Hunter Biden, and whether prosecutorial decisions were influenced by politics.

House Republicans are demanding more than a dozen federal officials, including the U.S. attorney in charge of the investigation into Hunter Biden, appear before multiple congressional committees for transcribed interviews regarding allegations of politicization and misconduct at their agencies throughout the years-long probe into the president’s son.

The Justice Department announced last month that Hunter Biden had entered a plea agreement that would likely keep him out of prison. As part of the deal, the president’s son will plead guilty to two misdemeanor counts of willful failure to pay federal income tax and to one charge of possession of a firearm by a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance.

Hunter Biden is set to make his first court appearance on July 26.

The DOJ has denied the investigation was influenced in any way. U.S. Attorney David Weiss from Delaware, who is in charge of the probe, has said the investigation is ‘ongoing.’