California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta defended Gov. Gavin Newsom’s claim that the Justice Department is being used as a political weapon, while reporting shows the federal inquiry involving Newsom and his wife began in California and has been handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Sacramento since 2025. Bonta insisted the probe fits a pattern of politicized prosecutions and echoed Newsom’s public statements that they are targets, even as sources say Washington was not involved in opening the case and earlier inquiries under a different administration produced separate corruption charges against a former aide. The governor’s office has asked the DOJ for records mentioning Newsom or his wife from the relevant period, and the investigation reportedly traces back to whistleblower complaints about personal finances.
The back-and-forth kicked off after Newsom announced publicly that he and his wife, Jen Siebel Newsom, are under investigation and accused President Donald Trump of ordering the Department of Justice to go after them, saying they’ve been added to “Donald Trump’s hit list.” That claim put state officials on the defensive and sparked sharp pushback from Republicans who want clarity on who opened the probe and why. Reports have since emphasized that federal prosecutors in California launched the inquiry and that it has been running since 2025, a timeline that complicates the narrative of a Washington-directed vendetta.
Bonta, speaking in defense of Newsom, described the investigation in personal terms and leveled pointed accusations about how the Justice Department has been used. “I know what I’ve concluded is that this is highly dubious — there’s no trust in it,” Bonta said. He added, “This is someone who’s weaponized the U.S. DOJ time and time again. I think he’s doing it now.”
Those statements read as partisan lines rather than detailed explanations of legal action, and they leave open questions about the sequence of events and the evidence behind the probe. Sources familiar with the matter say the case rests on whistleblower complaints around the Newsoms’ personal finances and that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Sacramento is handling it, not the Justice Department in Washington. That distinction matters because it undercuts the simple claim that a presidential directive was at the origin of the investigation.
Republican commentators and officials are pressing for transparency, demanding to see the chain of custody for the probe and whether any influence from high-level political actors occurred after it began. The governor’s office itself filed a public records request seeking documents that mention Newsom or his wife during President Trump’s second term, including communications involving Justice Department leaders. If the probe expanded after it reached federal level attention, that evolution will be central to determining whether politics played a role.
Bonta framed the stakes in broad political terms, highlighting Newsom’s national profile and potential future ambitions as a motive for targeting. “Newsom is the governor for the biggest state, the bluest state in the nation, the fourth largest economy in the world,” Bonta said. “Everyone knows that he could be president of the United States. So you put that situational awareness and context into this, and what do you conclude?” That line ties the investigation to broader partisan conflict, but it does not substitute for the substance investigators must produce.
At the same time, the public record includes an earlier, separate probe under the Biden administration that led to charges against Newsom’s former chief of staff, Dana Williamson, who pleaded guilty to lying about sharing internal information with a former associate. That case did not directly implicate the governor, yet it shows federal scrutiny of staff conduct existed before the current headlines. Republicans point to that history to argue the timeline and jurisdiction deserve careful examination instead of reflexive political claims.
Bonta accused former allies of directing aggressive legal moves in a way that destroys trust, using words like “weaponized” and saying the department has shifted toward “political persecutions against political enemies.” He singled out what he called “shifty Schiff” in a rhetorical swipe meant to underscore his point about partisan targets. Those charged labels will be tested by public records requests, prosecutorial filings, and the normal burdens of proof a federal case requires.
For now, the dispute mixes legal process with political theater: Newsom and his team publicly assert they’re being targeted by a partisan directive, Bonta amplifies that argument, and sources counter with a document trail that places the probe’s origin in Sacramento. The next steps will be critical — release of DOJ documents, any formal indictments, and how investigators publicly explain the facts behind the whistleblower allegations — because the political narrative will only harden while the legal work continues.
Graduate Student, wife, engaged political and legal writer.