Corporate Donors Gave Big to a Newsom Family Charity. Then the California Governor Took Their Side on State Issues.
- July 14, 2025
Free Beacon, Andrew Kerr
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 awayfrom 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.
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.”
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.