[NYPost] Federal investigators are reportedly examining the finances and nonprofit activities of Jennifer Siebel Newsom, California’s “first partner” and wife of Gov. Gavin Newsom. The governor went public Monday, accusing President Donald Trump of orchestrating the probes as political revenge against a potential 2028 presidential rival.
That framing deserves a hard look.
Jennifer Siebel Newsom is not simply the governor’s wife caught in a crossfire. She is the founder of multiple nonprofit organizations. She is a public advocate who has used her position to influence public policy. She is associated with organizations that have received millions of dollars from donors, including those with direct interests before state government.
That makes her a public figure, a political actor, and a participant in California’s influence ecosystem.
For years, Californians have been told that the first partner’s initiatives deserve public attention, media coverage, donor support, and a seat at the policymaking table. If that is true, those same activities cannot suddenly become off limits the moment investigators start asking questions.
Public influence brings public scrutiny.
According to multiple news reports, federal investigators are conducting at least two probes connected to the Newsom family. One focuses on Jennifer Siebel Newsom’s personal taxes. Another examines her nonprofit organizations, including the California Partners Project and the Representation Project, looking at financial relationships, donors, and affiliated entities.
Those inquiries are not unfolding in a vacuum.
Newsom’s former chief of staff, Dana Williamson, pleaded guilty last month to three felonies, including lying to the FBI about passing confidential state litigation information to former clients for their personal benefit — crimes committed while she worked inside the governor’s office.
That does not implicate Newsom or his wife. But federal investigators are already deeply familiar with the inner workings of his political operation.
Those facts do not establish wrongdoing. They do establish that scrutiny is warranted.
Reporting has highlighted payments from the Representation Project to Girls Club Entertainment — a film production company that Jennifer Siebel Newsom also owns — totaling $161,250 in 2024 alone. She was also reportedly paid a $150,000 salary from the Representation Project. A nonprofit she controls paid six figures to a company she controls, while also paying her six figures personally.
Gov. Newsom has also reported soliciting millions of dollars in behested payments — donations made to favored charities at a politician’s personal solicitation — directed to the California Partners Project since 2020. That reportedly includes $1.8 million from a Native American tribe holding a state casino agreement.
None of that proves corruption. But it raises serious questions about the intersection of political power, donor money, nonprofit fundraising, and personal benefit — questions that deserve answers, not dismissal.
Newsom’s political strategy is transparent. If the story becomes Donald Trump versus Gavin Newsom, many Californians will instinctively choose sides.
But that framing is a dodge.
The real issue is whether organizations connected to California’s First Family operated appropriately when donor money, political influence, and public office intersected.
Questions are not convictions. Investigations are not indictments. But neither are they political persecution simply because the governor declares them to be.
Complicating Newsom’s narrative further: Both investigations have reportedly been underway for about a year — launched by federal prosecutors in Sacramento based on whistleblower tips and local sources, not directed from Washington.
Media sources disputed that the probes were politically motivated.
If those reports are accurate, the governor’s preferred explanation collapses.
The public deserves answers about the financial and political networks that have developed around California’s First Family. Californians should reject the demand that those networks are somehow beyond scrutiny.
The governor can call it a vendetta. Californians should call it accountability.
Jennifer Siebel Newsom solicited state vendors and the governor’s campaign donors for large gifts to her charity, The Representation Project. Since 2011, this supposed gender-justice charity has raked in over $800,000 from corporate giants like PG&E, AT&T, and Comcast—firms with billions at stake in California’s regulatory landscape.
In August and September 2022, the Globe shared a report by Open the Books, which sued, and then had to file 442 California Public Record Act requests – one with each state agency – in order to obtain California’s line-by-line spending by state agencies. California’s Controller, Betty Yee, rejected their sunshine request for state spending, claiming she “couldn’t locate” any of the nearly 50 million bills she paid in 2019.
What Open the Books auditors found in California’s state spending was “979 state vendors who gave $10,561,828 in political donations to Gavin Newsom during his 2010, 2018, recall election, and 2022 election cycles. Meanwhile, these companies reaped $6,201,978,173 in state payments.”
That’s a $10.6 million investment for a $6.3 billion return.
The current charity revelations follow Governor Newsom’s November 2025 $13,000 fine from the Fair Political Practices Commission for failing to timely disclose more than $14.3 million in behested payments between 2019 and 2024. The FPPC classified the violation as negligent rather than willful, but watchdog groups argue the lapse underscores persistent transparency concerns.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
06/16/2026 11:12 Comments ||
Top||
[IsraelNationalNews] Professor Eytan Gilboa, an expert "expert"
in Israel-US relations, a lecturer at Reichman and Bar Ilan Universities, and senior researcher at the Began Saadat Center of Strategic Studies, spoke with Arutz Sheva-Israel National News about the recent developments in the relationship between the United States and Iran and expressed doubt in the ability of the emerging agreement to serve Israeli and US interests.
Professor Gilboa notes that the details of the deal are not fully known, besides information published by Iranian media. At the moment, Gilboa says, the deal is a memorandum of understanding built in stages, with the first stage focusing on the Strait of Hormuz. In effect, it restores the situation to what it was before, allowing traffic in the strait and enabling $12-24 billion frozen in various locations, mainly in the Gulf States, to reach Iran. In the second phase, the sides will discuss the nuclear issue for 60 days, but the details of that stage are still unclear.
Prof. Gilboa points out that the memorandum of understanding does not mention the uranium that is enriched to 60%. "At first, Trump demanded that the uranium be removed (from Iran), and now they say they are fine with Iran diluting the uranium. From historical experience, we know that they are unwilling to forgo nuclear weapons, and for years, they lied about the purpose of their nuclear program. They claimed that the program had civilian purposes, but for civilian purposes, 3.67% enrichment is enough. 60% enrichment is for military purposes."
In effect, Gilboa says that "Trump paid in cash, and received deferred checks from the IRGC, and according to experience, these are bounced checks..." To his understanding, the cause of Trump's change in policy was the internal and regional pressure, and Trump's sense that the war did not produce the results he hoped for.
"While he claims that he won and that the Iranians don't have an air force, navy, and so on, all this didn't move the Iranians one millimeter from their demands." Prof. Gilboa is convinced that the 60 days of nuclear negotiations will not produce a complete agreement that includes all the complex technical nuclear issues, their oversight, etc.
"Regarding Lebanon, instead of weakening the connection between Iran and the Hezbollah terrorist organization, Iran demands that the connection be bolstered. Trump didn't manage to change this, and since he's so eager to reach a permanent arrangement, he agreed to it. With this, he violated a clear Israeli interest, which is also an American one, since the US wanted an agreement with the elected government and the disarmament of Hezbollah. The memorandum of understanding goes in the opposite direction."
Trump's anger at Netanyahu stemmed from the understanding that Israel's strike on Beirut's Dahieh suburb endangered the deal because of the connection that Iran demanded between the deal and Lebanon. According to Prof. Gilboa, Trump's conduct is mistaken since Iran needs the agreement no less than the US does.
He also points out that in contrast to Trump's claims about regime change in Iran, the regime is not what changed, but rather the characters running it, and they are no more pragmatic or moderate than their predecessors. Trump speaks of a peace deal when it is not a peace deal, as Iran continues its policy of seeking to destroy Israel.
He notes that "both the opposition and coalition in Israel believe that it is a bad deal and that the chances that Trump will manage to obtain the objective of neutralizing Iran's nuclear arsenal are very low. The Iranians are experts at wasting time, deception, and trickery. Trump thought he knew how to negotiate, but he doesn't. One of the rules that he wrote in his book is not to show too much eagerness to reach a deal, and that is exactly what he did."
During the weeks of negotiations, the Iranians were able to identify all of the weaknesses of President Trump, who was eager to reach an agreement before the midterm elections, which he is approaching from a weakened political position, with two-thirds of the public opposing war. As a result, there is virtually no chance of a return to war, and his threats to resume military action are viewed as empty, according to the analysis. "Under these circumstances, the chances that this memorandum of understanding will be good for Israel and the United States are very low."
Gilboa also noted that the blows inflicted on Iran did not destabilize the regime, which still feels very secure. He said protesters did not return to the streets because the forces responsible for suppressing demonstrations remained in place. "The Iranians say this document is an American acknowledgment of defeat. They postponed signing it so Trump would not be able to say it was a birthday present for him," Gilboa said.
Posted by: Grom the Reflective ||
06/16/2026 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1848 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
Maybe we should just nuke the POS then and prove her wrong. The Iranian ppl had their chance , fuck all of them.
Posted by: Chris ||
06/16/2026 0:30 Comments ||
Top||
#2
^Eitan is a male name - means Steady, Unwavering in Hebrew.
Once Iran closed the straits, and the price of gas went up*, they had Trump by the balls - midterms, you know. So he'll sign anything. And hope that Israel will fix the problem - like Israel did Regan's problem with Iran.
And then he'll condemn Israel - just like Regan did. Mind you, I don't remember Regan using gutter language.
*Somebody (Besoeker?), asked why gas prices went up in US.
#5
For those who do Facebook: The Times of Israel’s Haviv Retig Gul has an interesting opinion of what the Memo Of Understanding with Iran is all about. Link
#8
I suspect Haviv Retig Gul nails it at the link on #5. Gul offers that it is essentially a global strategy as opposed to an Iranian strategy. Yes, global conflicts appear to be inevitable. Thanks for posting TW.
“You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains”
#10
It's simple, when they break the deal, turn a city to rubble. If they break it again, bounce the rubble and add two more cities. Tell them the 3rd time, we will glass one.
#11
I'm sorry some Israelis are disappointed. I'd still like to hear what Kurt Schlichter says.
Posted by: Bobby ||
06/16/2026 9:12 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Lots of speculation out there from people who haven't seen the MOU. Some of the following I think I saw on X and some is me:
*Iran's leadership has proven they can not be trusted
*Alternate pipelines are in the process of be built to avoid the Strait of Hormuz
*I have not heard of a single country that said they will accept paying fees to the Iranians
*Iran's nuclear bomb plan is now under a mountain of rubble and isn't likely to re-start anytime soon
*We've destroyed large chunks of their military and identified additional sites we didn't know about
*Iran is broke and having trouble paying the IRGC & foreign mercenaries they brought in to keep the civilians in check.
*That they had to import those mercenaries suggests that the IRGC ability to keep the people in check is questionable.
#17
Iran says the deal to end the war with the U.S. requires Israel to withdraw from Lebanon.
"We asked Bibi nicely to knock it off, but he just laughed in our faces. Then he said what I think are some very bad words in Yiddish. Sorry, we tried. You know how he is!"
-- Donald Trump, President
Getting Syria to fight Hezbollah for you would be a sign of god-like deal making powers. May we all live to see it!
As wars go, it is a small one, though long-lived and quite annoying to Israel and at least parts of Lebanon. The region as a whole would be better off without the Hezbollocks, but first things first. Right now, Trump is trying to engineer a future where Tel Aviv does *not* get nuked and there is no EMP airburst over the US Eastern Seaboard launched from an unflagged container ship. Focus on the mission.
There is no way the US is going to send in ground forces. Although we could supply swarms of autonomous killbots...
And yes, I understand why an Israeli might be skeptical of foreign leaders and their "deals".
#23
Yet you ran on blind faith during the covid scam
Posted by: Chris ||
06/16/2026 16:21 Comments ||
Top||
#24
#20 The Iran thing is not a deal in the sense of a commercial contract where our only recourse is small claims court or the ICC.
In game theory terms, by killing some people and blowing stuff up, Trump made a costly threat to force compliance with our no Iranian nukes policy. The mullahs said OK.
So where does that leave us? If the mullahs play nice (stop laughing!) and can keep the IRGC under control, everyone lives happily ever after.
If the mullahs do not play nice, Trump has two choices:
1) admit he was publicly punked by some rug merchants
2) go back to blowing stuff up.
Given his planetary-sized ego, I don't see Trump choosing #1.
Unless Iran has sorted itself out, the path to #2 is the likely outcome of the whole scenario. Starting up again will not be a big deal since our Navy will not be far out of theater before the festivities jump off. Happy Bridges and Power Plants Day, everyone!
Side Note: I wonder what the Mossad is up to these days. I bet they have been busy.
tl;dr: There will be more festivities. It is just a matter of time.
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/16/2026 16:43 Comments ||
Top||
#27
(a) #25 for #23. (b) This time around you are not just insulted Israel (which happens routinely) you alienated Gulf Arabs - watch how they deepen their ties with China.
#30
/\ Obama palletized cash in various denominations and nations drew a great deal of negative attention. These transfers have more recently been done in gold bars and Rolex watches.
#32
One thing: both we and Israel are struggling with resupply. Until that is taken care of, what are we going to restart with?
Though to be fair, Iran is probably in worse shape there — when the sirens went off the other day, they’d only shot off one or two of the things altogether. And they keep losing both factories and launchers somehow …
[WashingtonInstitute] Brief Analysis
As a landmark tool for tracking the group’s activity hits another sobering milestone, U.S. officials cannot let regional crises completely overshadow important shifts in jihadist threats around the world.
In March 2023, The Washington Institute launched the Islamic State Select Worldwide Activity Map in order to track the organization more holistically than attack data alone allowed, incorporating propaganda activity, claims of responsibility, financial sanctions, and legal cases. Three years and 5,000 database entries later, the picture provided by this interactive map has changed in ways that both confirm and complicate the trends identified at its one-year mark. The core IS “provinces” in Iraq and Syria are not just degraded—they have largely fallen off the operational map. In their place, an almost entirely African set of “provinces” now carries the IS torch of global jihadist insurgency and terrorism. And even as the group’s attacks grow deadlier per incident, the U.S. government’s tools for confronting IS financial and recruitment networks sit largely unused.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
