Gov. Gavin Newsom Says Trump Is Investigating Him and His Wife - The New York Times
By: Laurel Rosenhall Devlin Barrett and Maggie Haberman (nytimes)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Aides to Gov. Gavin Newsom of California say several people associated with the couple have been contacted by federal agents in the past week. He criticized the move as politically motivated.
By Laurel RosenhallDevlin Barrett and Maggie Haberman
June 15, 2026Updated 2:54 p.m. ET
Federal agents have questioned friends and associates of Gov. Gavin Newsom of California and his wife, Mr. Newsom said on Monday in a video in which he accused President Trump of using the Justice Department to punish a political enemy.
The full scope of any investigation remains unclear. But Mr. Newsom's aides say part of the federal investigation appears to focus on his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom. Former employees of the governor and people affiliated with his wife's nonprofit groups are among those who have been questioned by agents, according to the governor's office.
A person familiar with the matter confirmed that multiple federal investigations were underway related to the governor, including one looking at his wife's finances. But the person disputed Mr. Newsom's assertion that the investigations were politically motivated, and said they had been initiated by federal law enforcement officials in California, not launched by officials in Washington. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly.
Mr. Newsom, a Democrat, described the investigation as a fishing expedition in which federal agents had started sifting through "years and years of random documents" and knocking on the doors of family friends and associates of the Newsoms to try to find evidence of an unspecified crime.
"Donald Trump isn't just coming after me because of my mean tweets," Mr. Newsom said in the video. "He's coming after me because I am considering running for president." He added, "To get me, he's coming after my wife."
Several people associated with the Newsoms have been contacted by federal agents in the past week, according to the governor's office. Mr. Newsom's aides believe the agents have also subpoenaed banking records, but said they had seen no written evidence of that.
Tags
Who is online
309 visitors
Most likely a big mistake by Trump. Newsom is a great communicator who has already started to fight back by listing some of Trump and his families personal crooked business dealings and corruption.
He's a young Donald Trump.[✘]
If you could not fruitlessly try and compare dozens of Democrats to Trump you would be speechless.
If trump was smart, not crooked and a corrupt liar....yea, maybe...but it's a low bar isn't it. An armadillo with a brain tumor could step over the bar trump has set.
The more Trump like a democrat is, the more you like him. You should probably ask yourself why that is.
Are you okay? I dont like anything about Trump, he is a narcissistic, thoroughly dishonest, totally corrupt piece of shit.
When was he accused of more than two dozen women of sexual assault? When was he accused of raping a 13-year-old along with a known pedophile? When did Newsom say of a convicted pedophile "I’ve known (him) for 15 years. Terrific guy." "He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”? When did Newson pay off two porn stars nearly a quarter million to keep them quiet during a campaign? When did Newsom get convicted of 34 felonies? When did Newsom get recorded saying he just "grabs" women he finds attractive "by the pussy"? When did Newsom's charity get shut down and fined millions for fraud? When did Newsom's company get found guilty of tax fraud? I'm sorry, but I just don't see any resemblance to the piece of absolute shit rightwing conservatives voted for.
Are you? Newsom's whole strategy is too imitate Trump's communication style. He's famously not very smart.
Have you looked into his personal life? Want to talk about the character of a man who had an affair with his best friend's wife, broke up their marriage and then dumped her?
Or what about a 40 year old Newsom dating a 19 year old girl and giving her alcohol in public?
But sure, he's "nothing like Trump."
Well, I'm assuming the people reading aren't gullible idiots who fall for any rumor they stumble across on the internet and who believe things that aren't chronologically possible.
But sure, knock yourself without the type of fantasies that somehow make the "Obama was a whore who sucked dick for coke" seem reasonable by comparison..
Then you must not expect them to believe what you write.
The accusation is chronologically possible and had testimony from both the victim and the girl that put her in contact with Epstein and was filed in court twice. I would say that's a bit more than "internet rumor" as you'd like to make it seem. Was the case thrown out first for jurisdiction and then for lack of physical evidence? Yes. Is it entirely likely that Trump and his convicted pedophile friend did fuck underage girls? Yes, very likely.
You have people go to court to try to prove that accusation? Didn't think so. That kind of racist horse shit says a lot more about the one making the claim than it does about Obama.
But again, you completely dodged my question. How the fuck does Newsom resemble that lying sack of shit convicted felon Republicans elected President?
Given those examples, not even close.
Here again you dramatically downplay the words and deeds of Trump. The tactic is always to exaggerate the bad of Ds and largely ignore the bad of Trump.
Why? What possible purpose does this serve other than help Trump continue?
If people like you were to criticize Trump honestly and fairly, his support would dissipate.
Right now the critical problem is Trump and his cult. What is more important, the nation or defending a fantasy of the GOP that no longer exists?
The "victim" was four years old when the rapes supposedly occurred. No one ever testified about this.
You have people go to court to try to prove that accusation?
It was published in a book, which put the author at risk of being sued. Contrast that with anonymously having a lawyer file an unverified complaint and withdrawing it before having to testify under oath....
ow the fuck does Newsom resemble that lying sack of shit convicted felon Republicans elected President?[✘]
No one ever "testified" about that because that's complete bullshit and just another moronic Trump defending conspiracy theory.
Rape Allegations Refiled Against Trump | Courthouse News Service
New Evidence Corroborates Claims of Trump Sex Accuser, 13
It was a bullshit rumor of some dumb shit bigot former supposed classmate, but why the fuck are we even talking about it? Oh yeah, because you were desperately trying to find anything to deflect and distract from having to answer the question I've asked twice now. I won't bother waiting for an honest answer when honesty is not something to be expected from any fan of the liar-in-chief.
I really wonder sometimes whether they think someone will actually believe the bullshit they constantly regurgitate on behalf of their dear leader or if they are simply trying to earn kudos from the President for vociferously defending the indefensible.
I believe a lot of it is a longstanding need (or habit) of supporting the GOP. Apparently this need/habit persists well after the GOP of old (when the party had some level of decency and respect for this nation and its constitutional Republic) has disappeared.
They are, IMO, defending Trump in order to defend the phantom of their GOP and not recognizing that the GOPTRUMP is the GOP in name only.
Okay.
This makes no sense. You are just throwing angry words tighter since you can't construct a factual argument.. NO one testified under oath with regards to the allegations in the lawsuit. That's an easily verifiable fact. Your spluttering rage won't change that.
another moronic Trump defending conspiracy theory.
[✘] but why the fuck are we even talking about it?
Because that's the level of fever swamp conspiracy pushing you are at. There's no difference between people who believe every crazy allegation against Trump and those who push the Obama was a coke whore claim.
Tell us again how Trump called Neo-nazis very fine people.
Even the progressive fact checkers admit that progressive article of faith is a lie. I'd link to them but after 10 years of doing so it's clear that providing facts is just an exercise in futility, isn't it? I'm generally optimistic about the truth being able to conquer lies, but there's a limit.
Who were the "very fine people" on the Unite The Right side?
link.motherjones.com/public/36753434
The nation was shocked by this racist violence. Trump responded with a tweet that merely said, “Charlottesville sad!” Then he read a statement denouncing “this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence” and ad-libbed, “On many sides, on many sides.” Many sides ? In his first full comment on this tragedy, Trump was establishing an equivalency between the white supremacists and those protesting them.
Two days later, top Trump administration officials, including FBI Director Christopher Wray, told him he needed to state clearly that the Klan and the Nazis were responsible for the violence. Trump countered that the racist protesters were right to oppose the removal of the Lee statue. Yet afterward he did read another statement saying, “Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups.”
Trump should have stopped there. But he held a press conference the following day, and he defended all his comments on Charlottesville, decried the removal of the Confederate statue, and said of the Unite the Right protesters, “Not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all those people were white supremacists by any stretch.” And this was when he remarked that there had been “very fine people on both sides.” A few sentences later, he added,
“I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits, and with the helmets, and the baseball bats, you got a lot of bad people in the other group too.
The “very fine people” line received the most attention. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell commented, “There are no good neo-Nazis.” Meanwhile, former Klan chief David Duke and Richard Spencer, a white nationalist leader, hailed Trump for his comments. They felt these remarks benefitted them.
Looking at this whole saga, it’s clear that Trump yearned to both-sides this episode of right-wing racist violence. His first full statement cited hatred and bigotry on “many sides.” Then he tried to whitewash the Unite the Right rally by stating it had included “very fine people,” while denigrating those who had come to oppose it. He did say that neo-Nazis and white nationalist should be “condemned.” But Trump was suggesting that this racist event was not that bad because it included others. The rally, though, was organized by Nazis and white supremacists. It was not co-sponsored by Country Club Republicans for Robert E. Lee. There were no “very fine people” on the Nazi side. With that remark, Trump could only be referring to white supremacists and Nazis. Asserting good-hearted people were part of the Unite the Right hate-a-thon was a partial legitimization of this horrific gathering.
After Snopes issued its fact-check—which drew much criticism—it added an editor’s note: “This fact check aimed to confirm what Trump actually said, not whether what he said was true or false. For the record, virtually every source that covered the Unite the Right debacle concluded that it was conceived of, led by and attended by white supremacists, and that therefore Trump's characterization was wrong.”
The reason why the Snopes fact-checkers stumbled was because Trump—after his initial misguided statement and pressure from his aides—tried to have it both ways and made stuff up. He decried neo-Nazis and white supremacists but maintained that the crowd of neo-Nazis and white supremacists—some wearing his favorite MAGA baseball cap—included “very fine people” when it did not.
Harris had it right at the debate. That infamous comment showed that Trump was unable to simply call a racist Nazi mob a racist Nazi mob. He had to find some value in it and put forward a quasi-defense of these miscreants. And, as Harris noted, it was just one instance that illuminates Trump’s racism and his fondness for political extremism and violence. As he and his running mate now whip up racist hatred against legal migrants who happen to be people of color, it is not an opportune time for Trump and his enablers to relitigate Charlottesville. If one were to say his “very fine people” remark was a sign of Trump’s accepting attitude toward racism and extremism, a fact-checker would have to declare that true.
the ones well groomed or dressed alike are neo-nazis, the toothless dipshits with the poorly spelled signs or confederate flags are klan ...
These were Trumps initial comments on Saturday Aug 12.
Why did he say there was hatred violence and bigotry on many sides? The Unite The Right rally was organized and promoted by white supremacists. There was no 'good people on both sides', and if the left was "hating", who were they hating?
The fact is Trump did not not have the slightest clue what he was talking about, and he wanted to make sure to not offend his political base.
He is anything but a polished public speaker. His thought process is chaotic, his gaffes will eclipse Biden's.
He said what he said, then he backtracked. Over the next few days, every attempt to clarify made it worse.
The fact checkers are split.
Remember how much shit "they" gave Obama for saying he'd been to 51 states on the campaign trail? The same conservative hero's for truth that ignored Obama's correction now defend Trump for all time, not that he misspoke but some other statements negate this comment.
I am surprised that this doc is still on a .gov website and not purged yet.
HHRG-118-ED00-20240417-SD006.pdf
Maybe it's on the Democrats .gov site, /S
You claim Newsom is like Trump. I questioned the logic of that claim and pointed out the MANY flaws of Trump of which Newsom exhibits none. You take issue with one of the flaws Trump has been accused of and throw out some stupid rumor from over a decade ago to deflect just that ONE flaw, the rest you simply ignore because you clearly have no defense. And I'm the one pushing a "fever swamp conspiracy"? What the actual fuck.
Now why not try and answer the original question. In what way is Newsom "a young Donald Trump"? Why do you believe he is like a convicted felon and twice impeached adulterer? Why would you liken him to a man who cheated on all three of his wives and ran at least six companies into bankruptcy, was found liable for sexual assault and had his charity shut down and fined and his business found guilty of tax fraud? Why is it so hard to answer the question? You made the claim.
From your link - this is the crux of the matter
There was controversy for three and a half days because for all that time Trump never took the lead on condemning the white supremacist rally. From the very beginning, very likely before he knew anything about who was marching or why, he did the "both sides" thing. Trump was more concerned with not upsetting his base than he was with speaking the truth, for 3 1/2 days.
that's a neat trick
Who bitched up and down and all around about witch hunts?????
Fuck around and find out, donnie boy
How is "donnie boy" finding out because Newsom is under investigation?
I
Clueless comment.
IT sure was. So many progressives just throw words together and then clap each other on the back like they've made a point. It's almost like they see words they kind of understand in a sentence but lack the reading comprehension skill to actually comprehend how the words go together. It sad it happens so often.
So is the DOJ investigating ANY republican? The entire DOJ seems to spending all of their time investigating one Trump opponent after another with no intent to actually investigate anything criminal.
What democrat did the Biden DOJ investigate?
4 Sean Treacy
Now you two fight while we sit back and watch.
Biden DOJ stopped the investigations due to lack of evidence. If the Trump DOJ produces indisputable evidence that she committed fraud, whether it is immigration of financial, will you admit the Biden DOJ dropped the investigation only because of politics and not lack of evidence.
"Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX):"- I'll give you this one
"California Governor Gavin Newsom:"- As the post states, Newsom was not implicated in this particular investigation. However, his chief of staff was, so I will give you half point for that. The current investigation into him and his wife were also started by the Biden DOJ...don't you think ole Gavin has some problems if both a democrat AND republican DOJ are looking into your conduct?
If you think that the Trump DOJ should investigate any Republican, post who and EXACTLY why, with evidence, not just fantasized opinion.
Also, if the Trump DOJ indicts any member of the Biden admin, with the exception of Comey, which is under indictment now, and there, again, is indisputable evidence of fraud, would you support the charges and, if there are convictions, the sentence handed down?
As they should.
No.
If the Trump DOJ finds evidence that the Biden DOJ did not find that would not be due to politics. If the Trump DOJ "manufactures" evidence, that would be purely political. If you can prove that the evidence is true and applicable to the investigation AND that Biden DOJ knew about it, then yes you would have a point.
‘As they should.’
Why? Because, in your biased opinion, nothing was done illegally. Based on your past posts, I am 100 percent certain that if it was proven the Biden admin dropped the investigations due to politics and absolute indisputable evidence is proven, you would still argue against it.
There was strong evidence against Trump in every single case he was charged with.
If there is no evidence for an investigation, why would you have or continue an investigation? Concept is quite simple.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a foundational legal principle dictating that an accused person is presumed innocent, and the burden of proving their guilt falls entirely on the prosecution.
It's really hilarious to me that we have those who are demanding the government should have the right to go on fishing expeditions to try and dig up dirt on Trumps opponents under the presumption they're guilty of something, they just need to dig more and they'll find it. While at the same time, they completely reject the crimes their dear Leader was actually FOUND GUILTY of in a court of law where the prosecution proved their case to a jury of Trumps peers and a conviction that still stands because it was beyond reproach. One would really have to be a fucking dumb shit incessantly shoving their head up Trumps ass like a jack hammer to rationalize that kind of bullshit.
AI Overview
I wouldn't doubt this for a second, but the facts in this case show that the origins of this particular investigation started with whistleblower complaints locally at the State Auditor's level, and after being ignored at that level they were ultimately brought to the US Attorneys office in Sacramento over a year ago. In all that time, the investigations were not publicized nor made into a political spectacle until Gov Newsom recently accused the Trump Administration of "weaponizing the DOJ", engaging in a "fishing expedition", and targeting him and his wife in a political "witch hunt". Those terms sound so familiar don't they?
Some more AI Overview here:
Again, the inquiries weren't launched publicly until Newsom made his highly public statements and news agencies began to look into it further to discover that the investigation was launched based on local whistleblower information and not at the behest of the Trump DOJ in DC. The DOJ has maintained official silence throughout and have consistently declined comment on the matter in accordance with standard practice for an investigation in the information/fact gathering stage.
More AI Overview regarding whether there is sufficient evidence to continue the investigation and fact-gathering:
As I mentioned in my comment #5 below, it will be interesting to see the Trump Administration's response to Newsom's FOIA demands with respect to this investigation, but I think a Glomar response is likely, possibly tethered to a fairly strong argument for FOIA exemption 5. We will see.
The investigation started under Biden.
not that this will stop progressive's insanity.
Insanity???
The President of the United States is a mentally ill malignant narcissist and pathological liar who publicly admires evil dictators around the world, shits on long-time allies, and has utterly destroyed our good standing in the world. Not to mention being a corrupt, criminally-minded tyrant; a convicted felony fraudster; a self-admitted sexual predator found liable in a court of law for sexual abuse; a thief of boxes full of classified documents; and a coup-plotting traitor to the republic who not only pardoned his fellow Jan 6 traitors, but wants to reward them with public money.
Why don't you EVER care about any of that? Talk about insanity.
During the Biden administration, the DOJ launched a separate federal probe into corruption surrounding Newsom's former chief of staff, Dana Williamson. While Newsom himself was never implicated in that scheme, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform continued to scrutinize financial matters tied to the governor's inner circle.
The DOJ will no doubt start with a Glomar response to Newsom's demands possibly tethered to FOIA exemptions 5 and/or 7A, but they will need to legally justify their response at every turn. To my knowledge nobody in the Trump administration or DOJ has directly admitted or publicly confirmed that Governor Gavin Newsom or his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, are under investigation by Trumps DOJ. Since the investigation of Ms. Newsom's tax and non-profit filings started over a year ago in response to whistleblower complaints/testimony offered to State and local law enforcement and eventually the US Attorney's office in Sacramento, it should be fairly easy for the Trump DOJ to prove that the investigation did not originate at their behest and that interagency communications ahead of any decisions to act or indict are well covered by Exemption 5 (Deliberative Process). We will see. Just another circus involving tax-payer money poured into the pockets of lawyers from both sides.
Interesting that Newsom is using the same "fishing expedition" and "witch hunt" language as Trump did when he was being investigated. He followed the same Trump gerrymandering tactics as well. Fighting fire with fire? Maybe. But I just say "No Kings" to the both of these clowns. Nobody should be above the law or due process.