Written by Daniel Matthews.
Late Thursday, President Donald Trump announced the removal of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s taxpayer-funded security detail and limousine service. Trump cited Fauci’s substantial income from vaccines and patents, adding that the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases could afford to cover his own expenses.
The decision, confirmed by a CNN report, revealed that Fauci’s security services were revoked by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) overnight. While the move has drawn mixed reactions, sources close to Fauci confirmed that he has since hired private security personnel at his own expense due to ongoing threats linked to his public role during the COVID-19 pandemic.
What Was Fauci Receiving From Taxpayers?
For months, American taxpayers were footing the bill for Fauci’s 24/7 security protection and limousine transportation—privileges typically reserved for the President, Vice President, and their families. According to records from the U.S. Marshals, these perks continued well after Fauci retired from government service. This arrangement, which raised eyebrows among fiscal conservatives, added millions to taxpayer expenses.
Fauci’s financial background has been a focal point in the public discourse. Before retiring, he held the title of the highest-paid federal employee, earning $480,654 annually. His reported net worth exceeds $11 million, bolstered by an annual retirement pension of $350,000. In addition, watchdog group OpenTheBooks reported that $15 million in taxpayer funds were spent on Fauci’s security detail in the two years following his retirement.
Trump’s Response to Backlash
During a Friday tour of hurricane damage in Asheville, North Carolina, Trump was asked about the potential consequences of removing security details from high-profile individuals like Fauci.
“Would you feel personally responsible if something were to happen to Dr. Fauci or John Bolton?” a reporter inquired.
Without hesitation, Trump replied, “No.” He elaborated, emphasizing that individuals like Fauci and Bolton have earned significant wealth and are more than capable of affording their own private security.
“They all made a lot of money,” Trump said. “If they feel strongly about their safety, they can hire their own security. I can even recommend some great security teams. But I won’t take responsibility.”
Our Take
This decision underscores a broader shift in how post-service perks are handled for public figures. While some argue that Fauci’s security needs are justified due to the threats he faces, others see this as an example of fiscal responsibility—especially considering his considerable personal wealth.
From a conservative perspective, this move sets an important precedent. Taxpayer dollars should be used judiciously, and individuals who have amassed significant fortunes during their public service careers should not rely on government funding for luxuries like 24/7 security and limousine transportation.
However, this issue also raises questions about the fine line between ensuring public servants’ safety and curbing unnecessary government spending. Transparency and accountability should guide these decisions to prevent misuse of public funds.
