If you are just reading in, here are key things to know about the case and what happens next:
The verdict: After nearly two days of hearing evidence and witness testimony, the jury reached a unanimous verdict on the two contempt charges in less than three hours.
Bannon smiled as the verdict was read, looking back and forth between the courtroom deputy and the foreperson. Bannon's team did not mount a defense during the trial, and he did not take the stand. Speaking to reporters after the conviction, his attorney David Schoen said they planned to appeal the verdict, calling it a "bullet proof appeal."
In a Justice Department news release touting the conviction, the US Attorney for the District of Columbia Matthew Graves said that the "subpoena to Stephen Bannon was not an invitation that could be rejected or ignored."
“Mr. Bannon had an obligation to appear before the House Select Committee to give testimony and provide documents. His refusal to do so was deliberate and now a jury has found that he must pay the consequences," Graves said.
What happens next: Bannon will be sentenced on Oct. 21. He faces a minimum sentence of 30 days in jail, according to federal law.
Why the conviction matters: It is a victory for the House Jan. 6 select committee as it continues to seek the cooperation of reluctant witnesses in its historic investigation. It is also a victory for the Justice Department, which is under intense scrutiny for its approach to matters related to the Jan. 6 attack.
Bannon is one of two uncooperative Jan. 6 committee witnesses to be charged so far by the Justice Department for contempt of Congress. Trump White House adviser Peter Navarro was indicted by a grand jury last month for not complying with a committee subpoena and has pleaded not guilty.
Why the committee wanted Bannon's cooperation: Bannon was indicted by a federal grand jury in November after he blew off October deadlines for producing the documents and testimony the committee had subpoenaed.
In demanding his cooperation, the committee had pointed to Bannon's contacts with Trump in the lead up to the Capitol assault, his presence in the so-called war room of Trump allies at the Willard Hotel in Washington the day before the riot, and a prediction he made on his podcast before the riot that "all hell" was going to "break loose."
"In short, Mr. Bannon appears to have played a multi-faceted role in the events of January 6th, and the American people are entitled to hear his first-hand testimony regarding his actions," the House committee report recommend a contempt resolution against him said. The House voted to hold Bannon in contempt in October.
What both sides said in closing arguments: The Justice Department told the jury that the case was "not complicated," but that it was "important." "This is a simple case about a man — that man — who didn't show up," prosecutor Molly Gaston said. Bannon, she argued, "did not want to recognize Congress' authority or play by the government's rules."
Gaston described Bannon's conduct as a betrayal to his duties as a citizen, and said that he had "contempt" for the government and for playing by the rules. "The defendant chose allegiance to Donald Trump over compliance to the law," Gaston said.
Bannon's team argued in closing that the jury had reason to doubt the case, while suggesting the government's key witness was not impartial. "Mr. Bannon was not in a position to testify" for the committee, his attorney Evan Corcoran told the jury, while pointing to statements Trump had made about executive privilege in the House investigation.
The role of executive privilege in the case: When the House committee was demanding his cooperation, Bannon's lawyer claimed that Trump's stated assertions of executive privilege prevented Bannon from testifying or producing arguments — an argument the committee roundly rejected. Lawmakers noted that Bannon had for years not been a government official, while pointing to their interest to topic areas not involving conversations with Trump.
At the trial, however, Bannon's arguments about executive privilege were not a central focus — even as his lawyers found ways to bring attention to the issue. They did so in the face of rulings from the judge deeming it largely irrelevant, under appellate precedent, to the elements of the contempt crime.
Read more about the case and Friday's proceedings here.