Here’s What Trump Aide Peter Navarro Told Me

A post-subpoena interview

Thanks for checking out my newsletter — today’s piece gives me a chance to share more with you about a newsworthy interview… 

---

Admissions and Subpoenas 

Trump White House aide Peter Navarro came on The Beat and admitted to staging a coup, which he calls a “sweep,” a few weeks ago. 

That newsworthy admission prompted many questions. 

Was it coordinated with enough overt action to constitute a crime?

Would prosecutors investigate this, and related activity, as a crime?

Would the House January 6 committee now demand his testimony? 

The House just subpoenaed him, and on Thursday, he returned for his first interview since that development.

Peter Navarro joined me on The Beat yesterday.

In this new interview, Navarro asserts:

• He will legally challenge the subpoena, trying to invoke privilege.

• He stands by the effort to seize the certification process on January 6 to try to overthrow Joe Biden’s lawful victory.

• He was not involved In the fraudulent electors plot.

• He was not involved in the military plot.

• He was not involved in his own aide helping with an Oval Office meeting about the military plot.

Peter Navarro looks on during a meeting with Trump in 2020. c/o Pete Marovich/The New York Times/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Even Confessions Have Limits 

Hearing from direct participants in the efforts to overthrow the election has value, for several reasons.

It puts claims on record, which can then be tested—and may reveal more if people later change their story. (If they are not on record in the first place, the public may only hear a “final” or coordinated version of events).

It can add to public knowledge about the events. And it can reveal where even “vocal” participants’ limits are.

In this latest interview, Navarro was repeatedly emphatic that he didn’t know about, and was not involved in, several of the most extreme efforts to overthrow the election, which overlap with a time when he was engaged with a similar goal. 

So while multiple Trump aides were trying to use the January certification as a tool, he is now emphasizing that he was not involved in the electors plot that is under criminal investigation:

The Beat with Ari Melber on MSNBC 📺 @TheBeatWithAri

When asked about his knowledge of the Trump campaign's fraudulent electors plot, Trump aide Peter Navarro told @AriMelber the plan was not on his "radar"

Ditto for how his aide was bringing election deniers into the White House…  for a meeting about the proposal to try to abuse the military to seize voting machines. Even Rudy Giuliani warned that would land everyone “in prison.”

The Beat with Ari Melber on MSNBC 📺 @TheBeatWithAri

WATCH: Trump aide Peter Navarro tells @AriMelber he had “no knowledge” his own aide let election deniers into the Oval Office

Veeps 

Navarro’s admitted plan required VP Pence’s participation to even get off the ground. (There is zero evidence the Senate or courts would uphold such a ploy, even if a vice president tried it.) 

Pence didn’t play ball, as everyone knows, but Navarro’s “theory” pushes the VP as some kind of election overlord. So I asked him if he now thinks VP Harris has this role, and his answer was conditional and meandering. 

As HuffPost put it: Peter Navarro Gets Testy When Asked If Kamala Harris Can Throw Out Election Results

Walking and talking with Kamala Harris and Vivian Nixon in 2019.

Fight or Talk? 

As for the new subpoena, Navarro does have a legal path to challenge it. The system affords that. 

His actual legal claim to any privilege, however, may be weakened by how much he’s *already* disclosed about the topic he claims is privileged. That may get resolved in court. (Most of the committee’s witnesses have cooperated or found accommodations, a few have resisted entirely—one of those has been indicted for it, Steve Bannon.)

This is more than a logical “tension”—it raises questions over whether a witness’s actual concern is government secrecy (which can be valid), or just a personal interest in avoiding going under oath (which carries legal exposure). If it’s just secrecy, much of this plot is no longer a secret, as one person joked on Twitter:

Palmer Report @PalmerReport

It's almost as if Peter Navarro thinks the January 6th Committee can't hear him when he goes on MSNBC

We also raised the issue in real time: 

Acyn @Acyn

Melber: Why risk a legal battle or going to jail to refuse to discuss them with the committee under oath? Navarro: Because I have a loyalty to the constitution and to the president. The President has invoked executive privilege… Melber: *plays clips of Navarro waiving privilege*

Questions and Answers 

Journalism has evolved a lot over the years, but one thing that has endured is this core framework: asking questions, seeking answers, and following up with the questions prompted by those answers. Print reporters do it, and cull the relevant answers; TV reporters do it, with the audience watching the whole thing (relevant and all). It’s a challenging part of the job and still seems necessary.

What answer stood out most to you in the interview, or what’s the key question you have now? 

Tell me in the comments, and I will respond to some of you per usual. I’m finding the comments and our dialogue here is more constructive than any social media platform I’ve tried (sorry Twitter!)…  so keep it coming and looking forward!

The full Beat interview: 

And here’s some independent news coverage: 

Peter Navarro distances self from aide who set up Oval Office meeting on military seizing voting machines