During a recent status hearing, U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta communicated concern over the manner in which federal agents executed the arrest of former President Donald Trump’s White House advisor, Peter Navarro.
Navarro is currently facing two misdemeanor contempt of Congress charges for failure to comply with a subpoena issued by the House’s special committee investigating the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6. Each charge carries a maximum sentence of one year in federal prison.
Navarro was arrested in June by federal agents in Virginia at Reagan National Airport en route to a speaking engagement in Nashville, Tennessee. According to Navarro, during the course of his detainment, he was handcuffed, placed in leg shackles, and had several requests for contacting legal counsel denied.
In their official report, the federal agents who executed the arrest contradict his claims, saying he was handcuffed but not shackled. They also stated the agents offered to assist him in contacting legal counsel, but Navarro did not provide the name of his attorney.
“It is curious … at a minimum, why the government treated Mr. Navarro’s arrest in the way it did. It is a federal crime, but it is not a violent crime,” remarked Judge Mehta during the recent hearing. “It is a surprise to me that self-surrender was not offered.”
Judge Mehta, who previously served as a public defender before his 2014 appointment to a federal bench, questioned why prosecutors did not simply tell Navarro that he was going to be charged and provide him an opportunity to enter an FBI field office for processing.
After the July 15 hearing, Navarro’s attorneys, John Irving and John Rowley, spoke to the press. Irving called the situation a “constitutional case involving the separation of powers.”
He went on to say that the federal Department of Justice has over 50 years of established precedence that “make it clear that top presidential aides are able to assert absolute immunity and not testify before Congress.”
“The Justice Department also has longstanding policies about not prosecuting someone criminally for this kind of situation, so I wonder, ‘What changed?’… [A]nd we intend to find out,” concluded Irving.
“This is the first time in our nation’s 250-year history that a senior advisor to a president has been criminally charged for refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena,” added Rowley.
In response to a request for comment by The Dallas Express, Texas Public Policy Foundation Executive Director and General Counsel Robert Henneke castigated federal agents for their handling of Navarro’s arrest. “As an American, I’m disgusted at this abuse of power by the federal government.
“This is modern-day McCarthyism—where federal agents are retaliating against persons for political reasons and subjecting these individuals to embarrassment—is intended as punishment and to deter others from similar views and public service. It’s clear these individuals are being targeted for unfair treatment. The treatment of these individuals is unjust, and I condemn it,” said Henneke.
Craig Holman, a spokesman for the Public Citizen, a national nonprofit whose stated mission is to “defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people,” responded to The Dallas Express’ request for comment on this matter.
He stated, “While the arrest of Navarro was somewhat out of the norm, the behavior of the FBI agents was not so egregious to prompt Judge Mehta to demand an explanation from the FBI or face any repercussions.”
In his statement, Holman went on to concede that the FBI’s behavior in its arrest of Navarro was “aggressive” and likely “due to frustrations in having the agency’s independence repeatedly threatened by those who worked with Trump in trying to overturn the 2020 election.”
The treatment of Navarro is not the first time the current administration has utilized these tactics in dealing with members of the former Trump White House.
In late June, former Trump Department of Justice official Jeffrey Clark, and target of the House special committee on January 6, was pulled from his home in his underwear while federal agents executed a search warrant. Clark’s request to put pants on before vacating the house for the search was denied.
“Can I put pants on first?” Clark asked.
“Stand behind the cars, and no one will see you,” an officer told him.
Body camera footage of Clark in his underwear at the time of the search has since been released and is widely available on the internet.