Former White House Aid Navarro Says Trump Paid ‘About $300,000’ in Legal Bills

Dorothy Li
By Dorothy Li
September 23, 2023Donald Trump
Former White House Aid Navarro Says Trump Paid ‘About $300,000’ in Legal Bills
Peter Navarro, an advisor to former U.S. President Donald Trump, arrives at the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse in Washington on Sept. 7, 2023. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Peter Navarro, who served under President Donald Trump’s administration, said his former boss helped him pay “about $300,000” legal bills after he requested the financial assistance.

The former White House trade adviser’s revelation during a Wednesday interview with MSNBC came after he was convicted of two misdemeanor counts of contempt of Congress on Sept. 7, which Mr. Navarro has vowed to appeal.

So far, the legal fees he incurred over the course of the indictments have been “well in excess of $600,000,” Mr. Navarro said.

But the number is expected to be higher. Mr. Navarro estimated it “will be a million-dollar case.”

“Part of the problem here is this lawfare, this notion of, if you can’t put me in prison, you can at least bankrupt me,” he said.

“And you know, I’m not a wealthy guy. I wasn’t one of the wealthy guys in the Trump administration. All I ever did was create jobs, save lives, and settle labor strikes. And I thought I did the honorable productive service to this country,” he continued.

“And now, I’m stuck with a lot of legal fees.”

Asked whether he requested legal aid from President Trump, Mr. Navarro replied, “Certainly, he’s been a rock on this.”

Mr. Navarro encouraged viewers who want to help out to donate on, a platform designed to raise money for his legal bills. As of Friday morning, it has taken in over $623,000. The fundraising goal is $895,000.

Peter Navarro
Peter Navarro, an advisor to former President Donald Trump, speaks to reporters as he arrives at the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse in Washington on Sept. 7, 2023. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Earlier this month, Mr. Navarro was convicted of contempt of Congress charges after he refused to comply with a subpoena issued by the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 breach of the U.S. Capitol.

Shortly after the jury verdict was delivered, the former president took his Truth Social platform to defend Mr. Navarro, calling the House Jan. 6 committee “totally partisan” and being filled with “political hacks” and “thugs.”

“They should be the ones who are prosecuted, not Peter Navarro who, by the way, was [the] single greatest trade negotiator against China, who paid the U.S. hundreds of billions of dollars during the Trump Administration (never paid ten cents before us!),” the former president wrote on Sept. 8. “Only China is celebrating the Navarro conviction!”

Each count that Mr. Navarro is facing carries a maximum sentence of one year in prison and fines of up to $100,000. A federal judge set his sentencing for Jan. 12, 2024.

Mr. Navarro has called the charges “outrageous” and vowed to appeal.

“It’s outrageous what they’re doing to me, and everybody I worked with,” Mr. Navarro told Newsmax on Sept. 12. “Everybody in that frigging White House that I went in with on 2017, January, is facing massive legal bills and possible prison time because these SOBs want to keep Trump out of the White House.”

Mr. Navarro was the second Trump aide to face contempt of Congress charges after former White House adviser Steve Bannon. Now a host of the “War Room” show, Mr. Bannon, was convicted of two counts and was sentenced to four months behind bars, though he has been free pending appeal.

During Thursday’s interview, Mr. Navarro suggested that he did not regret his decision not to appear in front of the House select committee.

“For better or for worse, I’m going to be a figure in history in a landmark Supreme Court case,” he replied when asked whether he would do anything differently next time.

“And the question really before us is whether the legislative branch can compel a senior White House aide, an alter ego with the president, to testify before Congress. And going back to George Washington, the answer has been a resounding no,” he continued.

“The Department of Justice has had a more than 50-year policy of absolute testimony immunity for folks like me.

“So I am willing to go take this up the chain, the appeals court, probably to the Supreme Court, to resolve this issue, because it’s, it’s so important not just for, it’s a bipartisan concern. If you don’t have the constitutional separation of powers … you cannot have effective, efficient, candid presidential decision-making.”

Jack Phillips contributed to this report.

From The Epoch Times

ntd newsletter icon
Sign up for NTD Daily
What you need to know, summarized in one email.
Stay informed with accurate news you can trust.
By registering for the newsletter, you agree to the Privacy Policy.