Did Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon go to jail for not testifying before congress?

1. Two convictions, similar charges, different immediate outcomes

Both men were tried and convicted on two misdemeanor counts of contempt of Congress for failing to comply with subpoenas from the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack; they face statutory maximums of up to a year per count, but each received a four-month sentence at the time of sentencing ^{[1] [3] [7]}. Despite similar convictions and identical four‑month sentences being imposed in the respective cases, the judges handled their post-conviction custody differently: in Bannon’s case the judge allowed him to remain free while his appeal proceeds, whereas Navarro’s bid to stay out of jail was denied and he ultimately began serving his sentence after the Supreme Court declined an emergency stay ^{[1] [4] [6]}.

2. Why they were subpoenaed and why they refused to testify

The House Jan. 6 committee sought documents and testimony from both men about plans and communications surrounding efforts to overturn the 2020 election results — including a strategy sometimes called the “Green Bay Sweep” — and each refused to comply with the committee’s subpoenas, invoking presidential-level defenses such as executive privilege and asserting various legal theories that they should not be compelled to provide the requested materials ^{[5] [6] [8]}. Prosecutors and judges found those defenses insufficient to excuse non-compliance; prosecutors argued the refusals were knowing defiance of congressional authority ^{[7] [9]}.

3. Sentencing, appeals and practical consequences

Courts sentenced both to four months in prison; prosecutors had asked for longer terms (for example, six months was sought for Navarro) while defense teams pushed for probation or no jail time ^{[9] [10] [7]}. Bannon’s sentence was stayed pending appeal, which kept him out of custody while his legal challenges continued; Navarro’s attempts to delay incarceration were rejected by lower courts and by the Supreme Court, and he reported to a federal prison to begin serving his sentence ^{[1] [4] [2]}.

4. Legal significance and novelty cited by commentators

Commentators and legal practitioners highlighted the cases as historically notable: juries convicted two former senior Trump advisers of criminal contempt related to a congressional investigation into an assault on the Capitol — a rare use of criminal contempt against high-level presidential aides — and observers said the convictions could strengthen Congress’s enforcement tools going forward ^{[8] [11]}. Defenses emphasizing executive privilege and presidential immunity did not carry the day in the trials or in the post-conviction rulings cited in reporting ^{[6] [5]}.

5. What reporting does not say (limits of current sources)

Available sources do not mention claims that either man committed unrelated crimes beyond the contempt counts in these stories, nor do they provide exhaustive details about every legal argument made on appeal; the reporting provided focuses on the contempt prosecutions, sentencing, and immediate appellate status rather than any later case developments not covered in these pieces (not found in current reporting). Also, while multiple pieces reference a connection between Navarro and Bannon’s planning, the sources do not establish a criminal conspiracy conviction tying the two men together on those broader allegations ^{[8] [6]}.

6. Competing narratives and political context

Prosecutors presented the refusals as deliberate assaults on Congress’s investigatory authority and compared the defendants’ behavior to undermining the rule of law; defense teams and some supporters framed the prosecutions as novel political prosecutions or disputes over separation-of-powers — arguments that judges and appellate panels largely rejected in the rulings described ^{[7] [6] [9]}. Readers should note that different outlets emphasize different facets — legal precedent, political implications, or the human drama of incarceration — and those emphases shape the narrative around whether the sentences were appropriate ^{[8] [10]}.

7. Bottom line for the original question

Yes: both Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon were convicted of contempt of Congress for refusing to testify or comply with subpoenas from the Jan. 6 committee and each was sentenced to four months in jail; however, Bannon remained free while appealing his conviction, whereas Navarro was ordered to begin serving his sentence after his requests to stay incarceration were denied ^{[3] [1] [4] [2]}.