California Gov. Gavin Newsom doesn’t typically get involved in disputes between rival Native American tribes. That changed last year, when Newsom used his office to try to block a small tribe from opening a casino in Northern California.
In August 2024, Newsom’s office sent a letter on his behalf to the Biden Interior Department urging it to reject a $700 million proposed casino project north of San Francisco by the Koi Nation, a tribe with fewer than 100 members. But the Biden administration approved the project anyway, so in May, Newsom sued the Trump administration in a last ditch effort to block the Koi Nation’s casino. Should Newsom get his way, it would be a major win for the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, a major California political donor which operates its own gambling compound just 15 miles away from its rival’s proposed site, which broke ground on a $1 billion expansion in 2023.
A little-known California government disclosure database may shed light on why Newsom took Graton Rancheria’s side in the high-stakes dispute.
In April 2024, a few months before Newsom sent his letter to the Biden Interior Department, the Democratic governor requested Graton Rancheria to contribute $500,000 to his wife’s charity, the California Partners Project. And in April 2025, one month before Newsom filed his lawsuit against the Trump administration, he again asked Graton Rancheria to contribute another $500,000 to his wife’s charity. The tribe cut those checks specifically at Newsom’s request, according to California’s “behested payments” database, which discloses whenever state elected officials request others to make donations on their behalf.
While the data doesn’t show an explicit quid pro quo between Newsom and Graton Rancheria, several ethics experts told the Washington Free Beacon that Newsom’s charitable solicitations from the tribe to his wife’s charity just before he used the powers of his office to try to block its rival from opening a competing casino raises major red flags.
“Any reasonably objective person would conclude this looks horrible,” said Kendra Arnold, the executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust watchdog group.
And it’s hardly the only time Newsom has taken action to benefit donors just after he secured their contributions to charities connected to him and his wife, according to a Free Beacon review of the California Fair Political Practices Commission’s “Behested Payments” database.
Newsom’s appointee to head that commission, Adam E. Silver, said in November the state discloses “behested” payments “because they’re considered a payment to influence that could impact a governmental decision.”
Graton Rancheria has fiercely opposed the Koi Nation’s proposed project on the grounds it lacks ancestral ties to the land—an argument Newsom repeated verbatim in his written appeal to the Biden administration. The Koi Nation, however, says its roots to the land date back 3,000 years, and said Newsom’s opposition to its proposed casino reflects a “fundamental misunderstanding of federal law.” Graton Rancheria, the small tribe says, is just trying to stave off economic competition to its existing casino. Newsom has not “behested” any charitable contributions from the Koi Nation.
Ethics watchdog Michael Chamberlain, the director of Protect the Public’s Trust, said the favors Newsom performed for Graton Rancheria may have run afoul of a California state law that requires state officials to recuse themselves from matters where they have a conflict of interest.
“This is very troubling and likely warrants further investigation by authorities,” Chamberlain said.
Newsom’s wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, doesn’t take a salary from the California Partners Project, but it works closely with her government office and serves an integral role in her efforts to force gender equity in private corporate boards. The charity runs a tight budget—from its founding in 2020 through 2023, the California Partners Project raised $2.7 million but ended 2023 with just $184,000 in the bank, according to its tax disclosures.
Siebel Newsom has her husband to thank for keeping the lights on at her charity. Newsom “behested” $2.4 million to the California Partners Project from 2020 through 2023 from a variety of organizations with business interests in California, including a total of $1.8 million from Graton Rancheria and $100,000 from the now-defunct Silicon Valley Bank.
“The Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria has a long history of giving to local, regional, and statewide causes that work to improve the lives of Californians,” said Graton Rancheria chairman Greg Sarris. “In that vein, we are proud of the strong support we have provided annually to the California Partners Project since 2022.”
Newsom has performed other political favors after “behesting” contributions from companies with business in his state.
On Sept. 3, 2024, for example, Newsom “behested” a $25,000 contribution from CVS at the same time the pharmacy giant lobbied Newsom’s office against a bill that would have cracked down on pharmacy benefit managers. CVS cut its check to the California Protocol Foundation, a charity that pays for Newsom’s out-of-state and overseas travel.
Newsom vetoed that same bill just a few weeks later on Sept. 28. A CVS spokesman praised Newsom for his “thoughtful approach” to the drug supply chain issue, and the company’s stock spiked nearly 3 percent at the open of the next market day on Sept. 30.
CVS spokeswoman Amy Thibault told the Free Beacon its donation to the California Protocol Foundation “was not related to any legislative outcome.”
Newsom has “behested” nearly $6 million to the California Protocol Foundation from private corporations such as CVS and activist groups with business interests in California since he became governor in 2019. Newsom has put those funds to good use. In January 2020, the Protocol Foundation gifted $8,799 to Newsom so he could “represent the State of California” at Super Bowl LIV in Miami, according to state disclosure records first reported here.
Later, in February 2023, the Protocol Foundation gifted another $3,595 to Newsom so he could attend a “whale-watching tour” in Baja, California, while his constituents were still reeling from a string of devastating winter storms.
Newsom also had the Protocol Foundation pay for roughly 100 “burner” phones that he mailed to prominent California tech CEOs, Politico reported in March. The phones were pre-programmed with Newsom’s phone number and came packaged with notes from the governor that read: “If you ever need anything, I’m a phone call away.”
Newsom also has a history of failing to report his “behested payments” to the public. The governor paid a $13,000 fine in November for failing to report $14 million in “behested” contributions that major corporations including T-Mobile, Amazon, and Microsoft made at his request between 2018 and 2024.
One of Newsom’s charitable benefactors didn’t have to wait more than two weeks to score a victory after donating to his wife’s charity at the governor’s request. On Feb. 27, 2024, for example, Newsom “behested” $99,000 from the Central Valley Community Foundation to the California Partners Project. Nine days later, Newsom awarded a $14 million no-bid contract to the Central Valley Community Foundation to administer part of a state jobs-building program.
“The sheer amount of cash combined with the nature and timing of government activity, is eye-catching—especially when unexpected windfalls are benefiting the contributors,” said Caitlin Sutherland, the executive director of Americans for Public Trust. “It’s past time for this cash flow to fall under intense scrutiny.”
The Central Valley Community Foundation did not return a request for comment.
Newsom wouldn’t be the first Democratic governor to come under investigation over an alleged “pay-to-play scheme.”
Arizona attorney general Kris Mayes, a Democrat, launched an investigation against Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs in 2024 after her administration approved a 60 percent rate increase to a residential care provider just after the company donated a total of $400,000 to her campaign and the Arizona Democratic Party.
Newsom’s office did not return a request for comment.
Read the full article here
