Staff Reports
The Supreme Court has once again shown its indifference to the plight of those who served under President Trump, denying former advisor Peter Navarro’s request to challenge an overreaching federal attempt to rummage through his personal email. In a classic case of bureaucratic overreach, Navarro—who didn’t just play a crucial role in the Trump administration but also tackled economic issues as his economic advisor—found himself at the receiving end of a federal fishing expedition.
Navarro’s contention is rather straightforward: the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) has no business infringing on the privacy of a former presidential employee. Simply put, while NARA can manage presidential records, there’s nothing in the Presidential Records Act that gives it the power to dig through personal emails with the aim of commandeering documents. It seems ironic that the same government that screams liberty and privacy at every opportunity is now trying to invade the email vault of a man who worked tirelessly for their so-called “public good.”
Supreme Court will not hear Peter Navarro’s challenge over personal emails, presidential recordshttps://t.co/DLhuf4eYqb pic.twitter.com/zFpLP6fh9S
— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) December 17, 2024
The feds have accused Navarro of using his personal email account to discuss the coronavirus pandemic. This smacks of typical Washington hypocrisy. If the feds truly cared about transparency, they would’ve focused their efforts on managing the mess that is their own communication, rather than chasing down a former advisor’s private messages. And who can forget that in this whole charade, Navarro appears to be the only former Trump employee facing this kind of scrutiny? Perhaps this is just the FBI’s way of saying that they’re still bitter about losing the war on narrative.
It could be suggested that the job of the Supreme Court should involve protecting American citizens from these types of governmental intrusions, but this time, they didn’t even bother to comment before effectively slamming the door on Navarro’s appeal. It only takes four justices to hear a case, and the absence of any interest from the court raises questions about the impartiality of today’s judiciary.
Despite the setback in court, Navarro is not backing down. After serving time in a delightful little prison stay for ignoring a congressional subpoena in the aftermath of the Capitol riot, he is still committed to serving in Trump’s forthcoming administration. This proves that the spirit of resilience is alive and well in the face of government overreach, even if the Supreme Court seems to have other priorities.
