FLASHBACK: Peter Navarro was barred from citing executive privilege in contempt of Congress case

Navarro's defense rested on his assertion that he refrained from complying with the subpoena under the belief that former President Trump had invoked executive privilege regarding their correspondence. However, US District Judge Amit Mehta rejected this argument, citing Navarro's failure to provide concrete evidence that Trump had indeed invoked such privilege, according to a Washington Post report from August.

Unlike former Trump aides Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino, who received legal counsel from Trump’s lawyer advising them to defy subpoenas based on executive privilege, Navarro reportedly failed to produce any documentation or directives from the President to support his claim.

"When I received that congressional subpoena…I had an honest belief that the privilege had been invoked," Navarro told US District Judge Amit Mehta.

Judge Mehta's ruling made it clear that without substantiated proof of executive privilege invocation, Navarro could not escape prosecution for contempt.

“Had the President issued a similar letter to Defendant, the record here would look very different,” Mehta wrote when he denied Navarro’s motion to dismiss the charges.

“Defendant has failed to come forward with any evidence to support the claimed assertion of privilege,” Mehta determined. “And, because the claimed assertion of privilege is unproven, Defendant cannot avoid prosecution for contempt.”

On Monday, Navarro made a last-ditch request to the Supreme Court to allow him to stay out of prison while his appeal process continues. However, on Monday morning, the Supreme Court denied Navarro’s request. Following the Supreme Court's decision, former President Trump expressed disappointment in Navarro being sent to prison by Biden's Department of Justice, labeling the decision as a "shame" and a "disgrace."