Fauci, Birx, Walensky, and Other Top COVID Officials Face Criminal Referral Requests in Seven States for Alleged Murder and Medical Terrorism

Criminal referral requests have been filed in seven U.S. states—Arizona, Pennsylvania, Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Missouri, and Oklahoma—against several high-profile public health officials for their roles during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Vires Law Group and the Former Feds Group Freedom Foundation submitted these referrals, urging state attorneys general to pursue criminal investigations into individuals such as Dr. Anthony Fauci, Dr. Deborah Birx, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, and others. The allegations include charges like murder, negligent homicide, involuntary manslaughter, medical coercion and abuse, kidnapping, human trafficking for forced labor, racketeering, operating a corrupt organization, and terrorism .

These legal actions represent a growing grassroots effort to hold public health officials accountable for decisions made during the pandemic, including hospital protocols, suppression of early treatments, and vaccine mandates. Notably, in February, seventeen state attorneys general formally requested aid from Republican congressional leaders to investigate the origins of COVID-19 and explore possible legal actions against Dr. Anthony Fauci at the state level. This concerted effort, spearheaded by South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, aims to circumvent the preemptive pardon issued by President Joe Biden on his last day in office, which sought to shield Fauci from federal prosecution .​

The implications of the criminal referral requests against Fauci, Birx, Walensky, and others are significant and could unfold across multiple areas:

1. Legal and Political Precedent

• Legal Accountability: If any state AGs pursue charges, it could set a precedent for holding public officials criminally liable for pandemic-related decisions—something unprecedented in modern U.S. history.

• Federal vs. State Jurisdiction Clash: The Biden-issued pardon for Fauci could spark a legal debate on the limits of federal protection against state-level prosecutions.

2. Public Trust and Division

• Erosion of Trust: This move may further deepen public distrust in public health agencies like the CDC, NIH, and FDA, especially among vaccine skeptics or those who believe early treatments were intentionally suppressed.

• Polarization: It could intensify political polarization, as supporters and critics of pandemic policies battle over whether these referrals are justice or political theater.

3. Impact on Future Public Health Policy

• Caution in Decision-Making: Future public health officials might act more conservatively in crisis scenarios, fearing legal consequences.

• Policy Hesitation: Emergency measures (like mandates or lockdowns) could face greater resistance, legal challenges, or be watered down to avoid backlash.

4. Media and Public Narrative Shift

• Narrative Re-examination: The mainstream narrative around COVID-19 response may come under renewed scrutiny as more documents and testimonies emerge from these legal efforts.

• Fuel for Alternative Media: Outlets critical of the pandemic response will likely use this to bolster their claims about mismanagement or corruption.

Overall Takeaway:
The criminal referrals against top COVID-era health officials signal a major shift in how public accountability is being pursued post-pandemic. What was once considered untouchable—decisions made “in the name of public health”—is now being scrutinized under criminal law. Whether these efforts lead to actual prosecutions or not, they mark a growing public and political push to re-examine the pandemic response, challenge federal authority, and redefine the boundaries of responsibility and consequence for government leaders.