Senior Counselor for Trade and Manufacturing | 45 & 47
Washington, DC
Joined March 2020
- Tweets3.7K
- Following89
- Followers393K
- Likes223
We’re seeing it in the data: President Trump is bringing critical supply chains back home and laying the foundation for decades of American prosperity.
Peter Navarro retweeted
Jeff’s astute post demonstrates why Navarro v. United States is more important now than ever before. The question we asked SCOTUS to decide is whether someone who believes in good faith that executive privilege prevents compliance with a Congressional subpoena should be forced to go to jail without the opportunity to present this defense to the jury. It is an important question to answer especially with all the Congressional oversight battles that loom over the next two years.
The White House Counsel's Office has now put the incoming Oversight Chair on written notice, and the letter goes straight to the controlling law. Quoting the Supreme Court in Watkins, investigations "conducted solely for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to 'punish' those investigated are indefensible." Congress, it says, cannot use investigations "to exercise powers of criminal prosecution assigned to the Executive and the Judiciary."
That is the heart of what I've been calling Silly Subpoena Season. "Lawyer up" is not the language of legislating. It's the language of a unchecked prosecutor. And when members brag about handing out subpoenas like "candy" and "Mardi Gras beads," as the letter notes, they are building the record a court will read later when it asks whether a subpoena serves a valid legislative purpose. Mazars tells courts to look hard at exactly that, and at breadth, when Congress comes after the President's information.
Don't misread the letter as a refusal to deal. It's the opening move in the accommodation process, which is the Constitution's actual structural answer here. Name the legislation you're considering, tailor the request to it, and negotiate. If that fails, the fight belongs in a civil case.
What it doesn't belong in is a grand jury. That's why Licavoli has to go and why the Navarro case matters now. Oversight is a serious constitutional power. A subpoena is a tool for legislating, not a party favor or a frivolous festival bead.
@RealPNavarro
The media can’t spin away the record number of investments and manufacturing projects across the country, driven by tariffs, since @realDonaldTrump took office.
Check them out for yourself! 👇
whitehouse.gov/manufacturing…
The Fed's inflation hawks want to sink their talons into the economy. They're playing with recessionary fire on purpose, threatening to burn down Main Street to appease Wall Street.
LISTEN HERE ⤵️
podcasts.apple.com/us/podcas…
Just one more reason why my appeal at the Supreme Court is so important. Jeff Clark is as good a lawyer as it gets - and the bastards took away his bar card. So read this and pass it on.
The White House Counsel's Office has now put the incoming Oversight Chair on written notice, and the letter goes straight to the controlling law. Quoting the Supreme Court in Watkins, investigations "conducted solely for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to 'punish' those investigated are indefensible." Congress, it says, cannot use investigations "to exercise powers of criminal prosecution assigned to the Executive and the Judiciary."
That is the heart of what I've been calling Silly Subpoena Season. "Lawyer up" is not the language of legislating. It's the language of a unchecked prosecutor. And when members brag about handing out subpoenas like "candy" and "Mardi Gras beads," as the letter notes, they are building the record a court will read later when it asks whether a subpoena serves a valid legislative purpose. Mazars tells courts to look hard at exactly that, and at breadth, when Congress comes after the President's information.
Don't misread the letter as a refusal to deal. It's the opening move in the accommodation process, which is the Constitution's actual structural answer here. Name the legislation you're considering, tailor the request to it, and negotiate. If that fails, the fight belongs in a civil case.
What it doesn't belong in is a grand jury. That's why Licavoli has to go and why the Navarro case matters now. Oversight is a serious constitutional power. A subpoena is a tool for legislating, not a party favor or a frivolous festival bead.
@RealPNavarro
If they can come for me, they can come for you. Overturn LickaVoli and take weaponized injustice out of the hands of any politician that brandishes it.
Democrats keep promising contempt referrals against this Administration's officials come January. Here's what actually happens to one, and why the Navarro case matters more than people realize.
Under the contempt statute, the referral goes to the U.S. Attorney for D.C. In practice, DOJ has treated prosecuting it as a discretionary decision, not a ministerial act.
In 2012 the House held Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt over Fast and Furious documents. DOJ declined to prosecute, taking the position that the statute can't be applied to an official asserting executive privilege at the President's direction. In 2022, DOJ declined to charge Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino. It charged Peter Navarro.
That asymmetry is the problem. Whether a senior adviser faces prison shouldn't depend on which administration's DOJ receives the referral, or whose adviser he was. Yesterday I said a senior adviser who stands on privilege in good faith shouldn't face a criminal contempt prosecution. The Holder precedent says DOJ agrees, and Holder's team agrees, but only when it helps their side.
That's why I filed in support of Navarro at the Supreme Court, and why Licavoli needs to go. If the Court settles the rule now, before the subpoena tsunami, the next fights over Stephen Miller or anyone else go where the Constitution sends them: negotiation and accommodation, and if that fails, a civil case. Not a grand jury.
🚨 BIG NEWS: You can now find me on Facebook. Same fight, new front.
FOLLOW BELOW 🔽
facebook.com/profile.php?id=…
They’re selling you a “bad Trump economy.” But the October jobs report blew past expectations by 2.5 times. Don’t believe the negative spin.
LISTEN BELOW 👇
podcasts.apple.com/us/podcas…
Peter Navarro retweeted
As some of you are aware, the case of Navarro v. United States has a cert petition pending at the Supreme Court. With Democrats openly threatening to weaponize oversight this case is more important now than ever. Today, we had five different groups file an amicus brief in support of us at SCOTUS and it is worth a thread to highlight each one.
Peter Navarro retweeted
As of today, Stephen Miller is White House Chief of Staff. Rep. Garcia has already told him to "lawyer up," and on CNN Sunday Garcia said Miller "is at the center of the major policy decisions" in this Administration.
Garcia just made the best argument for executive privilege, not against it. A chief of staff is the paradigm of the President's immediate adviser. For decades, administrations of both parties have taken the position that such advisers can't be compelled to testify about their advice to the President. District courts pushed back in the Miers and McGahn fights, but both ended in negotiated accommodations, not a final Supreme Court answer.
That unresolved question is why I filed in support of Peter Navarro at the Supreme Court last week. I said then it was of immense importance to resolve "before a new season of subpoena tsunamis is unleashed." Now the tsunami has a named target in the West Wing. A senior adviser who stands on privilege in good faith should not face a criminal contempt prosecution for doing so.
Oversight is a serious constitutional power. So is the President's need for candid advice. The Constitution's answer is the accommodation process, not "lawyer up" theater.
@StephenM
@RealPNavarro
@RobertGarcia
Stephen Miller is the perfect choice for Chief of Staff. He's a MAGA warrior. And his core beliefs speak exactly to what needs to be done: secure borders and an economic policy centered around tariffs and fair trade.
Peter Navarro retweeted
The U.S. economy again crushed economists' expectations, with very strong private sector job growth in October. 📈
The labor force is thriving under President Trump.
Stephen Miller is all signal, no noise, and no-nonsense.
Watch my War Room conversation: peternavarro.substack.com/p/…
The data show the underlying strength of Trumpnomics: 165,000 new jobs in October—more than 2.5 times forecast—and 10 straight months of factory sector expansion.
READ HERE @rc_markets ⬇️
realclearmarkets.com/article…
Peter Navarro retweeted
In every fight for the America First agenda, Stephen Miller has been on the front lines fighting for President Trump.
Peter Navarro retweeted
Read our press release here: itsyourgov.org/press/the-ove…
Important and useful read. Pass it on.
Yesterday, I filed a brief in support of Peter Navarro to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Along with former Pentagon Inspector General Joe Schmitz, my Oversight Project colleague, we explained why the D.C. Circuit’s 1960s decision in Licavoli, which was the linchpin of the Biden DOJ’s conviction of Peter for criminal contempt of Congress, should be reversed.
@RealPNavarro was wrongly convicted. And I am calling on @TheJusticeDept to file in support of Peter’s cause as well.
Please read our Oversight Project @ItsYourGov press release — or better yet read the whole brief. It’s a quick 25 pages or so and explains the history of the criminal contempt of Congress statute.
(This is an example of constructive building. The issue is of immense importance to get resolved before a new season of subpoena tsunamis is unleashed. No element of squabbling is involved. Just a constructive defense of Dr. Navarro. As the youngsters say — “This is the way.”)