National Institutes of Health Director Protection Act would ban Trump from firing Anthony Fauci without just cause
After the president retweeted a post with the hashtag #FireFauci, could such a move be possible?
Context
Besides the president, the most prominent public face of the federal government’s covid-19 response has been Anthony Fauci, M.D.
Since 1984, Fauci has served as the nonpartisan Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, but only gained widespread prominence since March during the pandemic. Brad Pitt even portrayed him on Saturday Night Live.
Despite the widespread bipartisan acclaim Fauci has received for his calm demeanor and scientifically accurate information, concerns have emerged that President Trump may fire him.
In mid-April, Fauci appeared on CNN’s State of the Union and told Jake Tapper, “If you had a process that was ongoing and you started mitigation earlier, you could have saved lives.” While not specifically mentioning Trump, some interpreted this comment as a dig at the president.
Soon after, Trump retweeted former California congressional candidate DeAnna Lorraine saying, “Fauci is now saying that had Trump listened to the medical experts earlier he could’ve saved more lives. Fauci was telling people on February 29th that there was nothing to worry about and it posed no threat to the US public at large. Time to #FireFauci…”
The next day, despite the retweet, Trump appeared to dispel the notion in a press conference. “Today, I walk in and I hear I’m going to fire him. I’m not firing — I think he’s a wonderful guy,” Trump said. Asked to explain why he retweeted the post then, Trump answered, “That’s somebody’s opinion. All that is is an opinion… This was a person’s view. Not everybody is happy with Anthony. Not everybody is happy with everybody.”
Since then, Fauci has become something of an internet sensation, for photos and videos that some believe demonstrate him expressing displeasure with the president in extremely subtle ways. One such viral video purportedly shows Fauci facepalming as Trump refers to the State Department as “the Deep State Department.” (Although some believe Fauci may have just been scratching an itch.)
Although Trump’s retweet occurred in April, he has demonstrated a tendency to fire, recall, or transfer officials many months after they first raised his ire. In February 2020, Trump recalled U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, months after his November 2019 testimony at Trump’s impeachment hearing. In November 2018, Trump fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions in large part due to his recusal from the Russia inquiry, which had occurred back in March 2017.
What the legislation does
The National Institutes of Health Director Protection Act would protect any NIH subsidiary director from removal by the president except for “malfeasance, neglect of office, or incapacity.” In other words, not for political retribution or for publicly disagreeing with the president.
This legislation would apply to the NIH’s 27 subsidiary institutes and centers with its 27 concurrent directors, on subjects including mental health, cancer, aging, drug abuse, deafness, neurological disorders, and genome research.
In practice, it’s unclear how this would stop a president from firing an NIH director by claiming malfeasance, neglect of office, or incapacity, even if the “real” reason was political retribution.
The Senate version was introduced on May 21 as bill number S. 3810, by Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA). The House version was introduced later that week on May 27 as bill number H.R. 7041, by Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT0).
What supporters say
Supporters argue that the National Institutes of Health — and particularly Dr. Fauci — owe an allegiance to the truth, and shouldn’t be forced to alter their advice or public statements to placate a president who could have the power to determine their job continuation.
“Dr. Fauci has become the most trusted voice of the science community in responding to this pandemic. He is not afraid to speak truth to power. But Donald Trump has an allergy to both — science and the truth,” Sen. Markey said in a press release. “Our response to the coronavirus crisis must be based on science, on data, and on the truth. We cannot allow Donald Trump to silence Dr. Fauci or any other government scientists.”
“President Trump’s political purge of dedicated public servants cannot be allowed to reach the public health experts working around the clock to keep us safe,” Rep. Welch said in a separate press release. “This bill would protect the scientists fighting this deadly disease and allow them to continue to give the American people sound scientific advice. Congress must act before Trump removes these experts from their posts.”
What opponents say
Opponents may not be limited to those who want Fauci fired, but could also include those who support him, under the logic that federal law might already protect Fauci from being fired for political retribution.
Fauci is a “Title 42” government employee, a category who can only be fired with just cause. Also, Trump technically doesn’t have the authority to fire Fauci; Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar and National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins are the two people who do. (Although, of course, Trump could order Azar to fire Fauci — and fire Azar if he doesn’t comply.)
Odds of passage
The House version has attracted two cosponsors, both Democrats. It awaits a potential vote in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
The Senate version has attracted one Democratic cosponsor. It awaits a potential vote in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee. Odds of passage are low in the Republican-controlled chamber.
This article was written by GovTrack Insider staff writer Jesse Rifkin.
Like our analyses? Want more? Support our work!
