Justice Department Won’t Prosecute Two Top Trump Aides for Defying Jan. 6 Committee

The pair have refused subpoenas to testify about the ex-president’s involvement in the Capitol riot.

Pro-Trump protesters seen on and around Capitol building in Washington, DC on January 6, 2021. Rioters broke windows and breached the Capitol building in an attempt to overthrow the results of the 2020 election. Police used buttons and tear gas grenades to eventually disperse the crowd. Rioters used metal bars and tear gas as well against the police. Photo by Lev Radin/Sipa USA)(Sipa via AP Images

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

The Department of Justice informed the special congressional committee investigating the January 6, 2021 insurrection that it will not prosecute Mark Meadows, former president Donald Trump’s last chief-of-staff, or Dan Scavino, a high-ranking Trump aide, for refusing to comply with the committee’s subpoenas requiring them to testify about Trump’s involvement with the attack on the Capitol. The DOJ made the announcement on Friday evening, the same day a federal grand jury did indict a third Trump aide, Peter Navarro, for his refusal to comply with a similar subpoena. 

Congressional subpoenas are similar to a subpoena from a court in that compliance with them is not optional. But congressional committees rely on the DOJ to actually pursue a contempt of Congress charge. Both Meadows and Scavino negotiated with the January 6 committee for weeks before eventually declining to come in for interviews with committee members, and Meadows did turn over thousands of records for the committee to review. In a letter to the January 6 committee, the DOJ was vague in its reasoning for not pursuing contempt charges against the two men, with a top agency official writing only that “based on the individual facts and circumstances of their alleged contempt, my office will not be initiating prosecutions for criminal contempt.” He also stated that the department’s review of the matter was over. 

The committee said it was pleased with Navarro’s indictment but found the decision on Meadows and Scavino puzzling.

Navarro is an ally of former Trump advisor Steve Bannon, who has also been charged with contempt of Congress for his own refusal to testify before the committee. Since receiving his subpoena, Navarro has been antagonistic towards investigators, doing things like suing the committee, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and the U.S. Attorney for Washington D.C., claiming they have no right to investigate. Navarro has never cooperated with the committee in any way, refusing not just to testify, but also to turn over records. Meadows, Scavino, and Navarro have all attempted to claim executive privilege, a rule that shields top presidential officials from some congressional scrutiny, as their reason to not testify. But although Navarro served in the Trump administration, he was not as high in the ranks as both Meadows and Scavino at the time of the January 6 insurrection. Prosecutions for contempt of Congress are rare, but it appears that DOJ prosecutors may be drawing a line based on executive privilege, perhaps giving more credence to claims from higher-level administration officials. 

Following his arrest on Friday, Navarro appeared outside of a Washington D.C. courthouse to complain that after openly defying a legal subpoena, and being criminally indicted for doing so, he had been treated by police as an actual criminal.

Navarro’s arrest also elicited an outraged and rather bizarre complaint from Trump ally Rep. Louie Gohmert from Texas, who went on Newsmax Friday to complain that the DOJ is biased against Republicans because it has dared to arrest people for lying to the FBI. (Deceiving the FBI is a crime that the DOJ frequently prosecutes people for, regardless of political affiliation.)

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate