California Gov. Gavin Newsom is facing renewed scrutiny as federal investigators examine people and organizations in his political orbit, including his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, and one of his former top aides.
Dana Williamson, who served as Newsom’s chief of staff from late 2022 until early 2025, pleaded guilty last month to multiple federal crimes. Her case centers partly on a conspiracy to steal from a congressional campaign account tied to Xavier Becerra, the former Biden administration cabinet secretary who is now considered a leading Democratic contender to succeed Newsom as governor.
Williamson also admitted to filing false tax returns and lying to the FBI about her official dealings involving Activision Blizzard, the video game company that had been the subject of a major California workplace discrimination lawsuit.
Her plea has put fresh attention on Newsom just as he has accused the Trump administration of using the Justice Department against him while he considers a possible 2028 presidential campaign.
A source familiar with the federal probes told The California Post that Williamson’s actions could create complications for the governor. Newsom had praised Williamson’s “insight, tenacity, and big heart” when she left his office, despite the fact that she was already under FBI investigation at the time, according to the report.
The investigation into Williamson dates back to 2022, a source told The Post. Other outlets have reported that the inquiry began with whistleblower complaints in California. Over the past year, investigators have reportedly expanded their focus to people connected to Newsom.
Neither Newsom nor his wife has been charged with any wrongdoing.
Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for the governor, dismissed the federal inquiry as politically motivated. She said investigators have contacted family friends, donors, former employees and associates, while also subpoenaing records and asking questions about Newsom’s finances, organizations linked to Siebel Newsom and personal family matters.
Gallegos said the governor’s office has not been told exactly what the Justice Department is investigating. She accused federal authorities of “chasing ghosts and launching investigations based on conspiracy theories.”
“The issue isn’t people or organizations,” Gallegos said. “The issue is that after failing to establish wrongdoing by the governor in their original line of inquiry, investigators appear to be casting an ever-wider net in search of something they can use.”
She also tried to separate Newsom from Williamson’s criminal case, saying prosecutors offered Williamson a deal, but that “the governor never committed a crime, so there was nothing for her to ‘offer.’”
Legal experts say the public record leaves room for two very different interpretations. Williamson’s crimes may be politically damaging but legally unrelated to Newsom. Or investigators may believe her conduct points to broader wrongdoing.
Paul DeGroot, a former chief prosecutor who handled public corruption cases in Passaic County, New Jersey, said prosecutors rarely move against a sitting governor unless they believe they can prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
He also said Williamson’s guilty plea could be uncomfortable for Newsom because people facing prison time sometimes cooperate with investigators.
“Frequently, the only realistic option an individual has to stay out of jail is to cooperate with law enforcement against others,” DeGroot said.
Still, he noted that politicians under investigation often try to turn the case into a political fight.
“Governor Newsom need look no further than President Trump about how a prosecution framed as being politically motivated can actually help the defendant politician at the polls,” DeGroot said.
Part of Williamson’s admitted misconduct occurred while she was working in the Newsom administration. That has drawn attention back to the state’s handling of its case against Activision Blizzard.
In 2021, California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing, now the Civil Rights Department, sued Activision Blizzard, accusing the company of allowing a workplace culture where women faced harassment, unequal pay and retaliation. The suit alleged women were pushed into lower-paying jobs, denied promotions and punished over pregnancy and motherhood.
The case later became politically charged. Janette Wipper, the state’s chief counsel, was fired after raising concerns about political interference. Her deputy, Melanie Proctor, resigned and claimed the governor’s office was “mimicking the interests of Activision’s counsel.” Newsom’s office denied those allegations.
The controversy grew after Activision board member Casey Wasserman donated $100,000 to Newsom’s anti-recall campaign shortly after the lawsuit was filed.
Gallegos confirmed that federal investigators have looked at allegations tied to Activision Blizzard, but she said they found nothing. She called any claim that Newsom or his office shaped the case to help Activision “absurd on its face.”
California ultimately reached a $54 million settlement with Activision Blizzard in late 2023. As part of the agreement, the state dropped its sexual harassment claim. The consent decree also said neither a court nor an independent investigation had found evidence of systemic or widespread sexual harassment at the company.
According to The Post, an FBI wiretap from June 2024 captured Williamson discussing plans to stop a public records request from Proctor that sought information about the Activision case. Williamson was later placed on leave after telling the governor’s office she was under federal investigation.
Her attorney, former U.S. Attorney McGregor Scott, has described the broader probe as politically motivated. He has said Williamson did not give investigators information about Newsom because she had none to provide.
Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School, said the evidence made public so far does not show that Newsom is criminally liable.
“At this point,” Levinson said, “I can’t tell whether this is merely embarrassing for him because he employed somebody who engaged in federal criminal behavior, or whether there’s more of a connection than anybody knows about.”