A federal appeals court has upheld the contempt of Congress conviction against Peter Navarro, the Trump administration official who defied subpoenas from the House committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack. The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia delivered a unanimous decision Tuesday, rejecting Navarro's appeals on both contempt counts.
Navarro served as director of trade and manufacturing policy under President Trump. He refused to comply with subpoenas from the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol, citing executive privilege claims. The committee sought his testimony and documents related to his involvement in efforts surrounding the Capitol riot and the weeks leading up to it.
The appeals court's decision affirms the lower court's conviction and removes a major legal hurdle for the Justice Department's prosecution. Navarro had argued that he acted under direction from Trump and claimed executive privilege protections shielded him from testifying. The appellate panel rejected these arguments, finding that Navarro's blanket refusal to appear before Congress violated federal law.
This ruling carries implications for other Trump associates facing similar charges. Steve Bannon, another Trump adviser, was convicted on two counts of contempt of Congress in July 2022 after refusing to cooperate with the House committee. Bannon received a four-month sentence and a fine.
The decision establishes that executive privilege claims cannot serve as blanket justifications for ignoring congressional subpoenas without first allowing courts to review specific documents and testimony. Navarro still has the option to appeal to the Supreme Court, though the high court rarely takes such cases.
The conviction represents a legal victory for the House committee's investigation into January 6. It underscores the committee's authority to compel testimony from administration officials and demonstrates that defiance carries legal consequences. The ruling also reflects judicial willingness