A U.S. federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday rejected U.S. President Donald Trump adviser Peter Navarro’s attempt to overturn his contempt of Congress felony conviction. The unanimous opinion of three judges on the D.C. U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals marks the latest failure of Trump advisers to unwind legal fallout over their actions around the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot. The decision also leans heavily into Navarro’s failures to prove in court that Trump wanted to shield him from congressional testimony. Navarro was found guilty in 2023 of defying congressional subpoenas related his public claims of plotting to block Congress from certifying Trump’s loss in the 2020 presidential election. The House Select Committee investigating the Capitol riot sought both records Navarro had and his testimony, but he refused. Navarro has already served a federal prison sentence, but he has been trying to argue in court for years that Trump told him he didn’t need to respond to the House’s demands, citing what he said was a formal assertion of executive privilege. But the D.C. Circuit panel, comprised of Judges Patricia Millett, Nina Pillard and Michelle Childs, determined this was a fig leaf. “Dr. Navarro first asserted executive privilege unilaterally without consulting with or receiving direction from President Trump,” the opinion, authored by Millett, said. The appeals court said Navarro had no documentation showing Trump had told him in a three-minute phone call to defy the committee’s subpoena. Both an attorney and an adviser for Trump who had testified to a grand jury against Navarro also said Trump never formally decided Navarro should be shielded. “Dr. Navarro immediately and categorically asserted executive privilege without consulting anyone … 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 in interviews, the court wrote. “That all cuts against Dr. Navarro’s purported good-faith defence, not in favour of it.” The court also highlighted that when Navarro was indicted and tried for his crime, both the executive branch – during the Biden administration – and Congress sought accountability. The Trump administration has let the Navarro appeal play out. “As it turns out, the Political Branches are entirely in accord this time. Congress held Dr. Navarro in contempt,” Millett wrote in the opinion. “And the Executive both informed Dr. Navarro that his assertion of executive privilege was unjustified and exercised its exclusive authority to bring this prosecution.” All three judges on the panel were appointed by Democratic U.S. presidents. Navarro, who now is a White House trade adviser, and Steve Bannon, another longtime Trump confidant, have both been trying to reverse their convictions through the court. Both served time in federal prison in 2024 for defying House subpoenas regarding Jan. 6. At the time Congress subpoenaed both to testify and the U.S. Justice Department prosecuted them, Bannon and Navarro were private citizens, and Trump was no longer president, between his two terms in office. Yet even once Trump retook the presidency last year, neither man has received a presidential pardon, despite the widespread clemency Trump has given to Jan. 6-related defendants and other allies. With their appeals still ongoing, the U.S. Justice Department told courts this year it wanted the charges against Bannon dismissed. Navarro’s attorney has said they do not want the charges dismissed as Bannon’s was. “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 D.C. Circuit precedent,” Navarro attorney Abhishek Kambli said in a statement provided to CNN on Tuesday. “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.” This story has been updated with additional details. By Katelyn Polantz, CNN
