Newsom releases tax returns under tightly controlled conditions, drawing Republican backlash

California Governor Gavin Newsom finally released four years of tax returns, but only to handpicked media outlets in a private Sacramento session where reporters could not make copies, fueling accusations that his promised transparency was anything but.

The returns, covering tax years 2021 through 2024, totaled 718 pages. Reporters from The New York Times and Politico were among the select few permitted to review the documents on Thursday. They were restricted to pen and paper. No copies. No photographs. And Newsom himself did not show up to take questions. The New York Post reported that it was not invited to the private review and was not even notified that other outlets had already been given access.

For a governor who signed a 2019 law requiring gubernatorial candidates to publicly disclose five years of federal income tax returns before appearing on California's primary ballot, and who pledged to continue releasing his own returns annually while in office, the gap between the promise and the performance is worth examining in detail.

Newsom's office kept The Post in the dark while briefing favored outlets

Earlier in July, Newsom's spokesperson Diana Crofts-Pelayo told The Post that the returns would be shared by the end of the month. She described them as routine.

"They're unremarkable and entirely consistent with what Californians already know from his annual Form 700 disclosures."

Newsom himself, when a Post reporter asked about the unreleased filings earlier this month, seemed caught off guard. "I know you love taxes," he said, before adding: "And you will have all those new tax returns, because, I have no reason why you haven't gotten them already."

But when the returns did surface, they did not arrive through any public channel. Newsom's office pre-selected which journalists could see them. Spokesperson Izzy Gardon confirmed Thursday that the returns would come out Friday, without mentioning that other outlets had already reviewed them. The Post was left out of both the invitation and the heads-up.

If the documents are truly "unremarkable," as Crofts-Pelayo claimed, the controlled-access format raises an obvious question: why not simply post them online? Newsom's office offered no explanation for the restricted setup.

Republicans call the process a contradiction of Newsom's own transparency standard

Republican members of California's congressional delegation did not hold back. U.S. Rep. Kevin Kiley, a former state legislator, called the selective release inconsistent with Newsom's public posture.

"If the governor is truly committed to transparency, it makes little sense to pick and choose who that transparency extends to."

Kiley also pointed to a broader pattern.

"This appears to be another Newsom story where the factual details are very different from the self-proclaimed headline."

U.S. Rep. James Gallagher was blunter, comparing the governor's approach to his record on homelessness, a policy area where Newsom's spending programs have drawn fire for inflated costs and murky nonprofit ties.

"He talks big about things but never actually delivers. This is another instance of that, only allowing select people and only pen and paper. This isn't real transparency. There are still a lot of questions where Gavin's money comes from."

Scott Meyers, a GOP congressional candidate running in California's 30th District, framed the issue as a basic test of public trust.

"If you want voters to trust you as a steward of their tax dollars, you should welcome that level of scrutiny."

$45,000 in Armani, nearly $200,000 for household staff, and a blind trust that hides the details

The financial picture that emerged from the restricted review was notable less for any single bombshell than for the lifestyle it revealed, and the questions it left unanswered.

In 2021, the Newsoms reported $3.5 million in taxable income. That figure included roughly $1 million from the sale of their home in Marin County, one of the wealthiest areas in the state. From 2022 through 2024, annual income settled into a range of $1.7 million to $2 million. Newsom's gubernatorial salary during the period was approximately $200,000, it has since risen to $246,000, meaning the vast majority of the couple's earnings came from outside government.

Most of that outside income flowed from winery, restaurant, and hospitality businesses held in a blind trust. But the returns do not identify which individual businesses generated profits or losses, according to the outlets that reviewed them. That is a significant gap. Voters and journalists cannot determine whether any of those businesses benefited from state policy decisions made under Newsom's watch.

The returns also showed that the Newsoms paid household staff nearly $200,000. In 2022, the couple donated Armani business attire, originally purchased for approximately $45,000, to an unnamed restorative justice nonprofit in Oakland. On their tax filing, they estimated the donated clothing's thrift-store value at $4,900. The New York Times flagged the clothing donation and its valuation.

Newsom collected $70,000 in author income in 2023 and $75,000 in 2024. His wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, reported $11,700 in earnings from Girls Club Entertainment, her feminist film production company, in 2022, a year in which the company lost approximately $37,000. Siebel Newsom also collected $150,000 or more each year from The Representation Project, her nonprofit.

Over the four-year period, the couple paid nearly $2.8 million in federal income taxes and approximately $500,000 in California income taxes. They donated between $40,000 and $67,000 to charity each year. Returns for the 2025 tax year were not included; the couple filed for an extension and expects to complete those returns in October.

A federal investigation and a guilty plea cast a longer shadow

The controlled release comes at a particularly sensitive moment. Last month, Newsom disclosed that he and Siebel Newsom are subjects of a federal investigation. A source previously told The Post that one federal inquiry is examining Jennifer Siebel Newsom's taxes specifically. Newsom has accused the Trump administration of weaponizing the Justice Department against him as a likely 2028 presidential contender, a claim that, whatever its merits, does not address the substance of the investigation.

The federal cloud around Newsom's orbit grew darker in May, when his former chief of staff, Dana Williamson, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud, filing a false tax return, and lying to the FBI. Williamson is scheduled to be sentenced September 17. National Review reported that Williamson had originally been arrested by the FBI in November 2025 on 23 counts, with charges stemming from a scheme to steal $225,000 from former HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra's dormant campaign fund. Williamson also allegedly claimed over $1 million in fraudulent business deductions for personal expenses including luxury accessories and private jet travel.

U.S. Attorney Eric Grant called Williamson's case "a crucial step in an ongoing political corruption investigation that began more than three years ago." That investigation started under the Biden administration, not the Trump administration, which undercuts Newsom's suggestion that the federal scrutiny is purely partisan.

Newsom's spokesperson at the time of Williamson's arrest distanced the governor from his former aide: "Ms. Williamson no longer serves in this administration." But Williamson served in Newsom's office through late 2024. The proximity matters. A governor whose own former chief of staff pleaded guilty to filing false tax returns chose to release his own tax returns in a format that prevented journalists from making copies or asking him questions. The contrast speaks for itself.

Newsom had not released returns since 2020, despite his own law and pledge

Newsom released tax returns during his 2018 gubernatorial campaign, covering filings dating back to 2011. He then signed the 2019 disclosure law and pledged to keep releasing his returns annually. But the returns covering years after 2020 had never been made public until now, a gap of several years that his office never adequately explained. The Post's sustained pressure campaign is what ultimately forced the commitment to release them by the end of July.

That Newsom would lecture other politicians about accountability while sitting on his own tax returns for years is a pattern his critics have noticed. He signed a law demanding disclosure from gubernatorial candidates, then stopped disclosing once he no longer faced a ballot deadline. He pledged annual releases, then went silent until a news outlet forced the issue.

And when the returns finally came, they arrived under conditions designed to limit scrutiny rather than invite it. Pen and paper. No copies. No questions. Friendly outlets only.

The governor's blind trust, meanwhile, shields the details of which specific businesses generated income, the very information voters would need to evaluate potential conflicts of interest. In a state where tax policy is already a flashpoint, a governor earning seven figures from hospitality businesses while setting regulatory and tax policy for that industry owes the public more than a supervised reading session.

Newsom's office has said the returns are "unremarkable." Maybe so. But the lengths the governor went to in order to control how the public saw them suggest his office understands they are worth a closer look, a look he went out of his way to prevent.

Even Newsom's own office has conceded ground under outside pressure before. This time, the pressure produced 718 pages of tax documents, and a masterclass in how to release information while making sure nobody can properly examine it.

Transparency that requires an invitation is not transparency. It is public relations.