covid

Washington, DC – A Senate committee hearing this week has once again shone a spotlight on the political divisions over the United States government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Wednesday’s hearing, held by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, continued years of criticism, mainly from Republicans, against immunologist Anthony Fauci, who led the government’s response to the pandemic.

Spearheaded by committee chair Rand Paul, several Republicans rehashed claims that the virus that causes COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, emerged from an infectious disease lab in Wuhan, China, and did not naturally transfer from animals to humans.

Stephen Morrison, the director of the Global Health Policy Center at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the hearing was a reflection of the deep, enduring partisan divides over the issue.

But he added that the meeting with Fauci did little to shed new light on the pandemic after years of investigation, hearings and political posturing.

“There’s no space for any civil discussion around any of these issues. There’s no desire really,” Morrison told Al Jazeera.

“So, what’s the lasting impact of this? I mean, it continues to impose unconscionable pain and suffering on [Fauci] and his family. It doesn’t advance the debate one inch on the whole question of COVID origins and what was past US policy and what should US policy be going forward.”

Wuhan lab leak theory

Wednesday’s hearing was based largely on a previous 520-page report from 2024, created by the Republican-led Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic.

That report claimed it was likely that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a Chinese research facility. Senator Paul has embraced this viewpoint, as has President Donald Trump.

In April of last year, shortly after Trump took office for his second term, the White House launched a webpage purporting to reveal “the true origins of COVID-19”, largely based on the report.

The site highlighted several claims that experts say pave over the nuanced scientific debate about the origins of the virus.

Drawing on the 2024 report, the White House asserts that SARS-CoV-2 “possesses a biological characteristic that is not found in nature” and that “data shows that all COVID-19 cases stem from a single introduction into humans”, setting it apart from previous natural pandemics.

Joel Wertheim, a professor of medicine at the University of California San Diego, told Factcheck.org that both claims were false.

While COVID does contain a characteristic to enter cells that is not found in its closest coronavirus relatives, that quality does exist in other coronaviruses more broadly. As Wertheim put it, “It is most certainly found in nature.”

Meanwhile, a pair of studies released in 2022 found at least two unique paths through which initial human infection occurred, contradicting the White House’s claim that the pandemic arose from a “single introduction into humans”.

The White House webpage also focuses on Fauci, who led the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) until 2022 and served as the chief medical adviser to former US President Joe Biden, Trump’s election rival.

Biden pre-emptively pardoned him in January 2025, fearing the physician might be arrested under the second Trump administration.

Ahead of Wednesday’s hearing, Trump took the opportunity to renew his derision of Fauci, writing on Truth Social that the medical expert’s “ideas were CRAZY”.

Trump also accused Fauci, without evidence, of orchestrating a cover-up for China, where COVID was first documented. The Republican leader was serving his first term as president when the pandemic began.

Ongoing debate

To be sure, there has been criticism from within the international scientific community that the lab leak theory was discounted too swiftly in the early days of the pandemic, as it became seen as political.

Trump and other world leaders had been quick to use anti-China rhetoric when discussing the virus.

There currently remains no conclusive evidence proving either the lab leak theory or that the virus had a natural origin. The vast majority of infectious disease scientists, including Fauci, have said neither possibility can be ruled out.

Still, a preponderance of experts say evidence indicates that the virus was most likely transferred from an animal, likely a bat, to humans, in a process called zoonotic spillover.

A 2024 survey of virologists and other scientists, conducted by the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute (GCRI), found most respondents believed natural transmission was considerably more likely than a lab leak, although most acknowledged it was impossible to definitively dismiss the theory.

Following three years of research, a World Health Organization (WHO) advisory board released a report in 2025 that also concluded “the weight of available evidence … suggests zoonotic spillover”.

Still, WHO director Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus cautioned, “As things stand, all hypotheses must remain on the table, including zoonotic spillover and lab leak.”

Inside Fauci’s diary

Fauci has long argued the scientific evidence indicates that the virus emerged from natural animal transmission, but he has repeatedly rejected the notion that he has outright dismissed the lab leak theory.

In a 2024 letter to the House Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, his lawyers maintained (PDF) it was “completely wrong” to say that Fauci had ever called the possibility a “conspiracy theory”.

Instead, they said Fauci and his allies rejected an array of conspiracy theories that have been tied to the lab leak theory, including the idea that he had “sneaked unnoticed into the CIA headquarters to try to convince CIA officials to debunk the lab leak theory”.

Wednesday’s hearing was preceded by the release of entries from Fauci’s private diary, stored on a government computer drive.

They were obtained through Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, a vaccine sceptic and Fauci critic, who passed them along to Senator Paul.

In one entry, Fauci described a claim that he “deliberately” worked with the Chinese to create the virus as a “way-out conspiracy theory”.

He and his legal team have also repeatedly rejected Republican claims that he leveraged millions in grant money to compel scientists to change their views about COVID’s origins.

The White House website, for instance, asserts that Fauci “prompted” an early study on COVID origins to downplay the lab leak theory. No evidence has been presented to support those claims, which have also been rejected by the scientists involved.

Did Fauci mislead?

On Wednesday, several Senate Republicans charged that Fauci’s diary entries showed he had intentionally misled the public by downplaying the possibility the virus had emerged from the Wuhan lab.

Fauci’s supporters, however, have said the diary fails to prove any deliberate attempt to mislead. They argue his public and private statements were consistent in the early days of the pandemic, when scientists’ understanding of the virus was shifting daily.

Fauci’s diary entries indicated he met with a group of experts in February 2020, noting “there was not total agreement” on the likelihood the virus had been created via human manipulation. Senator Paul and others said Fauci did not adequately reflect that view in his public statements.

Republicans also seized on a January 26, 2020, entry in which Fauci wrote that initial data suggests “the first infection was in early December and was not connected” to the wet market in Wuhan.

“Now we know the market was not the source but the amplifier,” he wrote.

During the hearing, Senator Paul said the diary revealed that Fauci was “repeatedly saying in public something different than what he believes in private”.

Fauci’s defenders have pointed to a USA Today interview he gave shortly after the diary entry, floating the idea that the market could have been an “amplifier”. Others have argued the diary entries do not contradict the view that the virus was of natural origins.

Public restrictions

Republicans on Wednesday also focused heavily on Fauci’s role in issuing public guidance about how to slow the spread of the COVID virus.

Several states saw schools close and businesses shutter amid social-distancing recommendations.

But those closures became a political lightning rod and featured prominently in the 2020 presidential elections and 2022 midterm races.

Indeed, new studies have cast doubt on the effectiveness of social distancing rules. Others indicate mask mandates may have been less effective than previously presented, although research still generally supports that masks may slow the spread of the disease.

As NIAID director, Fauci had no direct authority to impose public health mandates, which were typically introduced by state and local officials. While he had a role in issuing federal guidance, his work was part of a wider government effort involving other agencies and officials.

Speaking on Wednesday, Gary Peters, the top Democrat on the Senate panel, accused Republicans of “relitigating history” and seeking to “turn one person into a scapegoat for a crisis that hundreds of officials across the Biden and Trump administrations were responsible for handling”.

Still, Fauci’s diary does contain uncomfortable revelations about how he wielded his high-profile position. In one instance, he recounted how he offered then-New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio encouragement to close city schools. He did the same with an aide to California Governor Gavin Newsom.

“I advised De Blasio to go ahead and do it,” he recounted. “I went on to tell him he should close the bars and restaurants in NYC… He said that he would base this on my recommendation.”

Why now?

During the Wednesday hearing, Fauci invoked his constitutional right to remain silent roughly 100 times, drawing significant public scrutiny.

The 85-year-old Fauci, who enjoyed bipartisan support as NIAID director throughout much of his 38 years in the role, decried the hearing as an attempt to entrap him with perjury.

Critics, including several Democrats on the committee, have also questioned the timing of Wednesday’s hearing, which comes just three months before November’s midterm elections.

Republicans are expected to face an uphill battle in maintaining control of the House of Representatives, and they also risk losing their slim control of the Senate in the vote. A defeat in either chamber would serve as a major setback to Trump in his final two years in office.

The party has struggled to find a defining issue to campaign on, amid affordability woes fuelled by the ongoing US-Israeli war with Iran.

The hearing also comes at a time when polls have shown public trust in federal health agencies has plummeted since Trump took office.

For instance, a June poll conducted by the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health and the de Beaumont Foundation’s Public Health Listening Lab suggests that just 50 percent of respondents said they trusted recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

That marks a decline from 77 percent in the spring of 2025.

About 69 percent also felt that federal health agencies’ recommendations were too influenced by their leaders’ public opinions.

But Morrison, the health policy expert, saw the hearing as a personal attack on Fauci, with Senator Paul and Secretary Kennedy pursuing an ideological “vendetta”.

Fauci, he said, has come to represent for some Republicans the “iconic embodiment of everything that they have come to believe is craven and corrupt in the US government response” to COVID.

He warned that their approach, though, could chill any desire for top scientists to wade into government.

“People will say Tony Fauci could have done things a little differently, he made a few mistakes, and he could have admitted those,” Morrison said.

“But the ‘big but’ is certainly none of that warrants what’s happening here.”

After Arsenal‘s first league title for more than two decades was confirmed, tens of thousands of supporters rushed to Emirates Stadium to celebrate.

“I knew we were a sleeping giant that we needed to awaken in some way.” Kroenke said.

“We haven’t had a team, a squad like this in the social media age. Social media evolved and the Twittersphere and everything else around it.

“The instantaneous information, the ‘Banter Era’ – I’m aware of all this. I turned 46 last week.

“I’ve grown up around this and I’ve seen it all from my own perspective. I think that’s what I’m so proud to see. There was almost a time when you were a closeted Arsenal fan.”

But this success does not mean the end of the journey for Kroenke and his vision for the club, with the Gunners playing Paris-St Germain in the Champions League final on Saturday.

“I think I can think back and say that our stated goal was winning the Premier League, because if you can put yourself in contention for the Premier League, you’re in contention for everything else.” Kroenke said.

“Should we get a great result on Saturday, it’s not going to change or affect who we are. When you win something, the sun’s still going to come up the next day.

“You’ve got to get back to work and there are many teams trying to gain on you, including some historically great ones around the Premier League.

“So, we’re going to look to strengthen because we know that teams around us are going to get better. If you’re not trying to continually evolve and improve, you’re standing still.”

WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told Tenerife residents that the docking of a cruise ship hit by a Hantavirus outbreak does not pose the risk of triggering a Covid-like pandemic.

A MAJOR airline boss has said that the ongoing fuel crisis is causing more problems than Covid did.

AirAsia chief executive Tony Fernandes said the quick increase in jet fuel overnight was “much worse”.

He told the FT: “I thought I’d seen it all with Covid but having seen jet fuel go up almost three times – this is much worse.

“You wake up one day and your major cost has tripled – it was quite a new experience for me and I’ve been through a lot in my life.”

This was backed by the Chancellor of Germany earlier this year who said if it continues, it would affect the European economy as “heavy as we recently experienced during the Covid pandemic”.

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz since March has already caused problems for airlines, due to shortages of fuel.

FUEL FEAR

All the airlines that have cancelled flights amid jet fuel shortage holiday fears

TOWIE TRAGEDY

Towie’s Jake Hall dies in Majorca after ‘smashing into glass’ at villa party

Airlines have been forced to cancel thousands of seats, with European airlines such as Lufthansa and Scandinavian Airlines already scrapping routes this month.

Globally, major airlines such as United, Cathay Pacific and Emirates have all reduced capacity as well.

Data from Cirium estimated that there were two million fewer seats on sale in May compared to predicted.

American budget airline Spirit Airlines was even forced into administration, citing the higher jet fuel costs as a major cause.

Thankfully, UK airlines are yet to be massively affected, with most tour operators confirming that holidays are still going ahead as planned.

The only disruption is to the Middle East with destinations like Dubai still on the travel ban list.

On The Beach has even launched a new initiative for travellers this summer, where, if their flight is cancelled, they will get a refund on the same day.

However, Ryanair boss Michael O’Leary warned that unless fuel prices dropping, airlines are at risk of failing this summer.

According to Politico, he said: “If pricing stays higher for longer this summer, we think a number of our airline competitors in Europe are going to face real financial difficulties. I think there will be failures.”

To protect passengers from last minute travel chaos, the Department for Transport has also revealed new measures which will allow airlines to cancel flights up to two weeks in advance, without losing their airport slots.

Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said it would “give families long-term certainty and avoid unnecessary disruption at the departure gate this summer.”

But Which? Travel Editor Rory Boland warned: “Many passengers will understand that disruptions can occur and may be happy to travel a few hours or a day later.

“But for those on short trips or connecting flights it could mean the trip is no longer worthwhile.”