A federal appeals court Thursday denied a bid by Peter Navarro, a former adviser in Donald Trump's White House, to stay out of prison while he appeals a conviction for contempt of Congress.
Navarro, 74, was ordered to report to federal prison in Miami by Tuesday to serve a four-month sentence following his conviction in September on two contempt counts for defying a subpoena issued by the Democrat-led House committee investigating the events of Jan. 6, 2021.
Navarro could become, according to The Washington Post, the first person imprisoned for defying a congressional subpoena in more than a half-century under a federal law that is rarely prosecuted.
Judges Patricia Millett, Cornelia Pillard and Robert Wilkins — all Barack Obama appointees — of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia unanimously ruled against Navarro's bid to stay out of prison.
"Appellant [Navarro] has not shown that his appeal presents substantial questions of law or fact likely to result in reversal, a new trial, a sentence that does not include a term of imprisonment, or a reduced sentence of imprisonment that is less than the amount of time already served plus the expected duration of the appeal process," the judges wrote in an unsigned two-page ruling.
Navarro has said he didn't comply with the subpoena because he was restricted by executive privilege, although U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta, another Obama appointee, barred him from using that at trial because he ruled Navarro couldn't prove Trump invoked it. Still, the appeals court rejected the argument of executive privilege.
"Appellant does not argue in his motion that this appeal presents a substantial question of fact regarding the district court's finding that executive privilege was not invoked in this matter by former President Trump or the sitting President, and he therefore has forfeited any such argument," the judges wrote.
"Appellant's argument that the assertion of executive privilege is either presumptive or that the question is not one for the courts to decide does not present ‘a close question or one that very well could be decided the other way' because the argument presupposes that privilege has actually been invoked in this case in some manner by the President. That did not happen here. "
The judges determined even if executive privilege were available to Navarro, it would not excuse his noncompliance with the subpoena.
"Appellant makes no claim of absolute testimonial immunity, nor could he," the ruling stated. "A properly asserted claim of executive privilege would not have relieved him of the obligation to produce unprivileged documents and appear for his deposition to testify on unprivileged matters. In fact, appellant has forfeited any challenge to the district court's ruling that he was obligated to appear and) to invoke any relevant privilege in person in response to specific questions, as well as to answer questions seeking information outside of the asserted privilege's scope."
Navarro's next step would be an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In an email to Newsmax, Navarro attorney Stanley Woodward wrote "no comment" on the appeals court's decision.
Michael Katz ✉
Michael Katz is a Newsmax reporter with more than 30 years of experience reporting and editing on news, culture, and politics.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.