Peter Navarro, now serving as Senior Counselor for Trade and Manufacturing under President Trump’s second administration, has filed legal motions demanding that the Department of Justice explain its sudden decision to stop defending his 2023 criminal contempt conviction. Navarro previously held a similar advisory role during President Trump’s first term and was convicted under the Biden administration after refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena issued by the House January 6 Committee.
On August 28, 2025, the DOJ—still led by appointees from the previous administration—formally notified the D.C. Circuit Court that it would no longer argue in support of Navarro’s conviction. Instead, the department asked the court to appoint an outside lawyer, or amicus curiae, to continue the appeal. No legal justification for the department’s reversal was provided.
In response, Navarro filed a motion on September 6 asking the court to compel the DOJ to explain its actions. His legal team emphasized that when the Executive Branch reverses its legal position in a high-profile, constitutionally significant case, it has a responsibility to provide transparency and a clear legal rationale. Navarro argues that the DOJ’s silence undermines public trust and judicial integrity.
The case centers on Navarro’s claim of executive privilege, which he asserts protected him from compelled testimony during his service in the White House. Navarro maintains that the Biden-era prosecution failed to properly account for the constitutional protections afforded to senior presidential advisers. His current legal filings suggest that the DOJ’s abandonment of the appeal could severely weaken those protections for future administrations.
Navarro’s attorneys further argue that without an explanation, the DOJ’s decision risks establishing a dangerous precedent. They warn that executive privilege could be subject to political whims rather than legal consistency, eroding the separation of powers and endangering future White House counsel in both Republican and Democratic administrations.
The Justice Department has not issued any public comment in response to Navarro’s demands.
