SerpApi.Org
A federal appeals court in Washington on Tuesday upheld White House trade adviser Peter Navarro's felony contempt of Congress conviction, rejecting his claim that former President Donald Trump's executive privilege protected him from complying with the House Jan. 6 committee's subpoena.
In a unanimous 37-page opinion, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found Navarro failed to prove Trump instructed him to withhold testimony or documents from the congressional investigation.
“Dr. Navarro first asserted executive privilege unilaterally without consulting with or receiving direction from President Trump,” Judge Patricia Millett, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, wrote for the panel.
Navarro was convicted in 2023 on two counts of contempt of Congress after refusing to provide records or testimony to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot. The committee sought information about Navarro’s public claims that he helped develop a plan to block Congress from certifying Trump’s 2020 election loss.
He served a four-month federal prison sentence in 2024 but has continued challenging the conviction after his release in July that year. Navarro argued that Trump told him during a brief phone call that he did not need to comply with the committee’s demands because of executive privilege.
The appeals court found no documentation that Trump had formally invoked executive privilege or directed Navarro to defy the subpoena. The ruling said a Trump attorney and adviser who testified before a grand jury also said Trump had not made a formal decision to shield Navarro from the committee.
“Dr. Navarro immediately and categorically asserted executive privilege without consulting anyone,” the court wrote. “He did so before even seeing the subpoena and its cover letter that made clear the subpoena sought some information that Dr. Navarro concedes is not privileged because he had discussed it publicly” in his book and media interviews.
The panel said those facts undermined Navarro’s argument that he acted in good faith and did not “willfully” default on the subpoena, as required under the federal contempt statute.
Millett, Judge Cornelia Pillard, and Judge J. Michelle Childs also pointed to the agreement between Congress and the executive branch at the time of Navarro’s prosecution. Pillard and Childs are appointees of Obama and former President Joe Biden, respectively.
“As it turns out, the Political Branches are entirely in accord this time,” Millett wrote. “Congress held Dr. Navarro in contempt. And the Executive both informed Dr. Navarro that his assertion of executive privilege was unjustified and exercised its exclusive authority to bring this prosecution.”
PETER NAVARRO SEEKS 'PRECEDENT FOR YEARS TO COME' WITH RENEWED CONTEMPT FIGHT
Navarro’s appeal proceeded even after the Trump administration withdrew the government’s appellate defense of his conviction. Unlike the Justice Department’s move to dismiss the contempt case against former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, Navarro has continued seeking a ruling on the merits.
“The decision today from the D.C. Circuit panel was not surprising and Peter Navarro knew that it would be one step in a battle to correct decades of incorrect DC Circuit precedent,” Abhishek Kambli, Navarro’s attorney, said in a statement. “He intends to move swiftly with his appeal because his case affects every senior presidential advisor, regardless of political party, who believes in good faith they cannot comply with a Congressional subpoena based on executive privilege.”
