At the stroke of midnight one year ago today, former White House trade adviser Peter Navarro was released from a federal prison in Miami, flew with his fiancée Bonnie to Milwaukee, and brought the house down during his remarks at the Republican National Convention.
His rousing speech in support of Donald Trump and against the weaponization of our justice system by the Democrat Party was a stark reminder to America — and the MAGA base — that it was time for a sea change at the White House.
Navarro’s time in prison is now featured in a powerful new book, “I Went to Prison So You Won’t Have To.” It is a moving tale of a man willing to sacrifice his freedom in defense of the United States Constitution.
The question now is whether that sacrifice will result in the proper resolution of the landmark constitutional separation of powers issues raised in U.S. v. Peter Navarro.
As Navarro’s appeal winds its way inevitably toward an appointment with the U.S. Supreme Court, it deserves the full attention of the media and Main Street America alike. The outcome of this case will shape the very foundation of how our republic operates at its highest levels.
If Navarro’s conviction stands, every future White House — Republican or Democrat — will be hamstrung. Senior advisers will face a grim choice: Honor the Constitution and risk jail, or cave to partisan bullying on Capitol Hill.
That’s a recipe for chaos and dysfunction, and it threatens to irreparably damage the doctrine of separation of powers.
As context, along with Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro was one of the first senior White House advisers in U.S. history to be criminally charged for contempt of Congress.
For over 50 years before Navarro, the Department of Justice had maintained a firm policy of granting senior presidential advisers absolute testimonial immunity under the constitutional separation of powers and the long-established doctrine of executive privilege — a principle dating back to George Washington himself.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the need for confidentiality and candor in presidential communications. A president of the United States must be free to consult with advisers, deliberate in private, and receive unvarnished counsel without fear that those conversations will be dragged into partisan congressional show trials.
Without executive privilege protection, a sitting president cannot effectively govern.
In Navarro’s case, uber-partisan, Trump-hating Democrats turned this doctrine on its head. As Navarro noted in his RNC speech, it was a Democrat-controlled Congress that issued the subpoena, Democrat prosecutors who brought the charges, a Democrat-appointed judge who presided over the trial, and a Democrat jury in the bluest of blue cities that rendered the verdict.
The most egregious failure came when Judge Amit Mehta — joined later by Democrat-appointed appellate judges Cornelia Pillard and Patricia Millett — denied Navarro the right to remain free pending appeal.
This was a grotesque abuse of discretion. Navarro was neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community. He had — and now has — a high likelihood of prevailing on appeal.
Navarro has consistently made clear that he’s not pursuing this appeal for personal gain — he has already served the time. His sole aim is to secure clarity from the highest court in the land, ensuring that settled law emerges on the critical constitutional issue of executive privilege.
So, pay attention to this case. What they did to Navarro may be just a preview of the political lawfare to come.
If Navarro loses this appeal, it will be an open invitation to the partisan weaponization of the legislative branch, exposing all future presidents and their advisers — regardless of party — to endless subpoenas, political grandstanding, and even imprisonment.
In the meantime, pick up a copy of “I Went to Prison So You Won’t Have To.” It’s not what you might expect.
Rather than indulge in grievance, Navarro used his time behind bars to conduct a scathing investigation into the Bureau of Prisons and its failure to implement the First Step Act — legislation signed by President Trump to rehabilitate nonviolent offenders and save taxpayers billions.
Navarro’s firsthand account reveals how that promise remains largely unfulfilled.
One year after that midnight release in Miami, Peter Navarro is still fighting — not just for himself, but for the country. We would do well to join him in that fight.
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
