Peter Navarro Sentenced to Four Months in Prison for Defying Jan. 6 Committee
Judge rejects attempt by former Trump White House official to cite executive privilege, saying ‘You are not a victim here’
Updated Jan. 25, 2024
WASHINGTON—A judge imposed a four-month prison sentence on Peter Navarro, a former Trump White House official who was convicted last year of defying a subpoena from the House panel that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
For now, Navarro isn’t required to report to prison. The judge requested additional briefing on whether Navarro should be allowed to exhaust his appeals before serving his sentence.
“Let’s be clear, Dr. Navarro: You are not a victim here,” U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta said at the close of a court hearing in Washington. “This is not a political prosecution [and] these are circumstances of your own making.”
The judge said that, given Navarro’s background, he should have known that he had a duty to comply with the congressional subpoena. Navarro had tried to cite executive privilege, a legal doctrine that allows some conversations between a president and advisers to remain confidential.
The judge said that, even if executive privilege had been properly invoked, Navarro was still required to provide some information to the committee.
“You were more than happy to talk to the press about what you did… but not go up to the Hill to talk to Congress,” the judge said.
“The words ‘executive privilege’ are not some magical incantation,” the judge said. “It’s not a Get Out of Jail Free card.”
The Justice Department had suggested a six-month sentence for Navarro, saying he had thumbed his nose at congressional authority as if he were above the law.
Another Trump ally, Steve Bannon, was previously sentenced to four months in prison for similar conduct. A judge allowed Bannon to remain free while he pursues an appeal of his underlying conviction, which is still pending.
Stanley Woodward, one of Navarro’s lawyers, argued that his client had acted reasonably when he received the subpoena. Navarro had a good faith basis for believing he could invoke executive privilege, and therefore didn’t act with the sort of willful intent required for a conviction, Woodard argued.
Woodward said a probation-only sentence would have been appropriate given his client’s age and history of public service.
“I have a great deal of respect for your client and all he’s accomplished. I really do,” Mehta said at the hearing. “That’s what makes it all the more disappointing the way he behaved.”
Navarro, a 74-year-old former Democrat, was an influential figure in the Trump White House. The longtime University of California-Irvine professor advised Trump on his coronavirus response and was an architect of Trump’s trade policy with China.
In the weeks after the November 2020 presidential election, Navarro wrote a report supporting Trump’s baseless claims of mass voter fraud.
In 2021, the Democratic-controlled House created a bipartisan committee to investigate the Jan. 6 attack, in which Trump supporters battled with police officers and delayed Congress’s certification of Joe Biden’s victory.
The committee subpoenaed Navarro in early 2022, seeking documents and testimony about alleged efforts by Trump, Bannon and others to overturn the election.
Other Trump advisers, including Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino, also refused to speak to the committee. Meadows did provide a trove of text messages to the committee, which revealed how top Trump advisers had pleaded with him to stop claiming the election was stolen due to vote fraud.
The House said the four men—Navarro, Bannon, Meadows and Scavino—were in contempt of Congress’s authority and should face charges.
The Justice Department charged Bannon and Navarro with contempt of Congress, a rarely prosecuted misdemeanor offense. Federal prosecutors declined to bring charges against Meadows and Scavino, however.
Mehta, an Obama appointee, limited Navarro’s potential defenses ahead of trial. The judge found no evidence that Trump had ever invoked executive privilege as to Navarro’s testimony—even informally.
In the current Congress, House Republicans took initial steps toward holding Hunter Biden in contempt over his initial refusal to sit for closed-door questioning as part of the impeachment inquiry into his father, President Biden. But, last week, the younger Biden agreed to appear for a deposition on Feb. 28, heading off that push to hold him in contempt of Congress.
A full House vote to hold Hunter Biden in contempt would have resulted in a referral to the Justice Department, raising the specter of a third federal prosecution while the president’s son separately faces gun and tax charges in Delaware and California, respectively. The younger Biden has pleaded not guilty to both sets of charges, which center on his purchase of a firearm in 2018 and allegations that he evaded taxes on millions of dollars in income from foreign businesses.
Write to Jan Wolfe at jan.wolfe@wsj.com and C. Ryan Barber at ryan.barber@wsj.com