A federal appeals court unanimously upheld Peter Navarro's contempt of Congress convictions after finding the Trump trade adviser invoked executive privilege on his own, without direction from the president whose authority he claimed to be protecting.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled Tuesday that the law "mandates compliance with congressional subpoenas" and that Navarro had no legal basis to refuse the House select committee's demands for records and testimony related to January 6, 2021. Judge Patricia A. Millett, writing for the court, found that Navarro "immediately and categorically asserted executive privilege without consulting anyone, whether counsel or the President to whom the privilege belongs." The ruling leaves intact two felony contempt convictions that Navarro has fought since a jury found him guilty in 2023.

The decision marks the end of a years-long legal fight that Navarro, a Harvard-trained economist now serving as a senior adviser in President Trump's second term, chose to wage rather than accept a pardon. He told reporters he wanted to set a precedent that would strengthen executive privilege protections for future presidents and their top White House aides. The court did not give him that precedent. It gave him the opposite.

Navarro claimed privilege before he even read the subpoena

The February 2022 subpoena from the House select committee investigating January 6 sought records and testimony about what Navarro has called the "Green Bay Sweep", a plan he described in his own books to pressure then-Vice President Mike Pence into delaying Congress's certification of the 2020 electoral college results across six swing states that Joe Biden had won. Pence refused, and the plan failed.

Navarro's defense rested on two pillars: that executive privilege shielded him from complying, and that separation of powers barred Congress from compelling testimony from a senior presidential adviser. The D.C. Circuit rejected both.

On privilege, the court was blunt. Millett wrote that Navarro "failed to produce any document establishing that President Trump had directed him to assert executive privilege and could not recall whether such a document existed." Trump never invoked executive privilege for Navarro, even though he did invoke it for other advisers who received subpoenas related to January 6. Biden, once in office, took the position that Navarro was not covered by the privilege either.

The court's unanimous opinion stated that "at a minimum, the privilege must be claimed by the President (current or former) or an official authorized by the President to claim it." Navarro did neither. As the Washington Examiner reported, Millett wrote that Navarro "first asserted executive privilege unilaterally without consulting with or receiving direction from President Trump."

The court went further, noting that Navarro asserted the privilege "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 own books, Navarro had already described the Green Bay Sweep strategy and his work with Steve Bannon to carry it out. Breitbart noted that Navarro admitted in a 2021 book that he devised a strategy to delay Congress's certification of the 2020 results, the very material the committee was seeking.

The legal principle at stake is straightforward: you cannot claim a president directed you to stay silent when the president never said any such thing, and you cannot call information privileged when you already published it yourself.

No prosecutors showed up to argue against him, and he still lost

The December oral argument before the three-judge panel produced one of the more unusual scenes in recent appellate history. The Justice Department, which stopped defending Navarro's convictions last year, sent no prosecutors to argue the government's side. Only Navarro's attorney, Stanley Brand, addressed the court.

Brand acknowledged the strangeness of the situation. As the Washington Post reported, he told the panel:

"It's been a very strange journey."

Judge Millett's response at the close of arguments was equally telling. She told Brand: "Normally, I would offer you rebuttal, but there's nothing to rebut." With no opposing counsel present, the court had only Navarro's arguments before it, and still found them insufficient.

All three judges on the panel, Millett, J. Michelle Childs, and Cornelia T.L. Pillard, were appointed by Democratic presidents. Navarro did not immediately comment on the ruling Tuesday. Whether he plans to seek further review, either from the full D.C. Circuit or the Supreme Court, remains unclear.

Millett's opinion also addressed the alignment between Congress and the executive branch on this question. She wrote that "the Political Branches are entirely in accord this time. Congress held Dr. Navarro in contempt. And the Executive both informed Dr. Navarro that his assertion of executive privilege was unjustified." That framing undercuts the separation-of-powers argument at its foundation: there was no conflict between the branches for the court to resolve, because both branches agreed Navarro should have complied.

Bannon walked free while Navarro's convictions stand

The contrast with Steve Bannon's case sharpens the picture. Bannon, another Trump adviser who defied the same committee's subpoenas, also received a contempt conviction and served prison time. But the Justice Department moved to dismiss Bannon's convictions, and the Supreme Court gave the green light for that move this year. Navarro received no such help. The Justice Department has not filed court papers seeking to wipe out his convictions.

Navarro and Bannon were the first former presidential aides charged with contempt of Congress since at least 2008. They were also the first people jailed for defying a congressional subpoena in more than half a century. That distinction now belongs to Navarro alone, Bannon's record is being erased while Navarro's stands.

The Justice Department's selective approach raises its own questions. The department filed motions to wipe out the convictions of top members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, groups whose members were convicted of offenses related to January 6. Trump pardoned more than 1,500 people convicted of Jan. 6 offenses. But Navarro has received neither a pardon nor a motion to dismiss from the department he now serves alongside in the executive branch. The legal system's treatment of those connected to politically charged pardon controversies continues to draw scrutiny from both sides.

Navarro served a four-month sentence in 2024 after his jury conviction. He declined to seek a pardon, choosing instead to pursue his appeal. That gamble did not pay off.

Navarro bet on principle and the court called his hand

AP News reported that Millett wrote Navarro "has acknowledged that even if executive privilege had been invoked, that would not have excused his categorical failure to comply with the Select Committee's subpoena." His attorney, Abhishek Kambli, said Navarro "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."

That argument has real weight for future administrations. Executive privilege exists for sound reasons, to protect the candor of presidential deliberations and shield sensitive policy discussions from political fishing expeditions. A president's closest advisers need to speak freely without fear that every conversation will end up in a congressional hearing room.

But the court's ruling did not reject executive privilege as a concept. It rejected Navarro's particular claim to it. The privilege belongs to the president, not the adviser. And when the president never invokes it, when no document, no directive, no communication supports the claim, an adviser cannot manufacture it on his own and then refuse to show up. Courts have repeatedly found, as Just The News noted, that Navarro continued to challenge his conviction even after leaving prison, but the legal foundation for his defense never materialized.

Navarro's case also sits within a broader pattern of courts pushing back against executive action. This year alone, the Supreme Court struck down sweeping tariffs that Navarro helped architect during his role as trade adviser. The D.C. Circuit has been active on other fronts as well, including cases where appeals courts have blocked Trump administration policies on different grounds.

Navarro now holds a senior White House role while carrying two felony contempt convictions on his record, convictions the Justice Department abandoned but the courts refused to overturn. He wanted to establish that a president's top aides can invoke executive privilege in good faith and resist congressional subpoenas. Instead, the D.C. Circuit established the opposite: that the privilege is the president's to invoke, not the aide's to assume.

Meanwhile, other high-profile criminal convictions continue to raise questions about accountability at every level of government. Navarro's case may be unusual in its specifics, but the underlying issue, whether powerful officials face consequences when they defy lawful process, is as old as the republic.

Navarro chose the fight. He served the time. He turned down the pardon. And the court told him he was wrong from the start. If executive privilege means anything, it means the president has to actually claim it.