This piece examines Governor Gavin Newsom’s recent Freedom of Information Act request to the Department of Justice after announcing a federal criminal probe involving him and his wife, contrasts that move with his office’s past refusals to disclose records under California’s public records laws, and highlights the legal exemptions and constitutional principles at play.
After posting a video saying he and his wife are the subjects of a federal criminal investigation, Governor Gavin Newsom had his office’s Legal Affairs Secretary file a FOIA request with the Department of Justice demanding all documents and records, including memoranda, emails, text messages, and Signal messages, referencing him or his wife from January 20, 2025 to the present. That filing uses state resources on what Newsom describes as a personal legal matter. Using taxpayer-funded staff in a private legal fight raises obvious questions about where public duty ends and private defense begins.
Yes, he’s using taxpayer resources in his personal legal battle. That’s not at all surprising.
https://x.com/CAgovernor/status/2066683965310709793
The FOIA request is unlikely to get everything Newsom seeks because standard exemptions would almost certainly apply where a federal criminal investigation and grand jury are involved. Exemption 5, which covers the deliberative process, attorney work product, and attorney-client privilege, and Exemption 7A, which protects against interference with enforcement proceedings, are the sorts of protections DOJ regularly cites. Communications that could reveal confidential informants are subject to statutory exclusion, meaning the DOJ may lawfully decline even to acknowledge the existence of certain records.
The only thing Newsom is attempting to accomplish here is reverse lawfare, or tying up DOJ resources in a “the process is the punishment”-style. He appears to be signaling, Come after me, but I will force you to spend time and resources responding. That tactic weaponizes transparency rules to bog down opponents rather than to promote public accountability.
Back in March 2025, when a local station submitted a California Public Records Act request seeking emails and text messages to and from Los Angeles County and City officials around the time of major fires, Newsom’s office refused to provide those communications and said the governor’s messages were exempt. That refusal shows how selectively applied transparency can be when an official controls which records are released and which are withheld. The inconsistency is striking: demand disclosure from DOJ while denying similar access at the state level.
However, email and text communications, whether from official devices and accounts or personal devices and accounts, are public records and are not categorically exempt from disclosure. California law treats writings that relate to the conduct of public business as public records if they are prepared, owned, used, or retained by a state or local agency. That broad definition aims to capture the reality that modern communications often cross the boundary between private devices and public duties.
(a) As used in this division, “public records” includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.
(b) “Public records” in the custody of, or maintained by, the Governor’s office means any writing prepared on or after January 6, 1975.
There are legitimate exemptions under the CPRA, but the statute requires agencies to clearly state which exemption they are invoking and why it applies to each document withheld. The presumption under California law is disclosure unless an agency can point to a specific exemption and explain its applicability. Broad, unexplained denials fail to meet that legal standard and undermine public trust.
The California Constitution was amended in 2004 to add a “Sunshine” provision that affirms the people’s right to information about the conduct of public business and requires meetings and writings of public officials to be open to scrutiny. That amendment reflects voters’ intent to make government more transparent and accountable, not to create loopholes officials can exploit. When public officials routinize secrecy, they erode the very principle that amendment sought to protect.
The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.
Newsom’s office has a pattern of refusing records requests, sometimes invoking public safety to withhold information about security details and travel costs. That practice raises two questions: are the denials legally justified, and are they being used to shield political leaders from scrutiny? Claiming exemptions as a default response risks converting accountability measures into tools for concealment.
When officials pursue aggressive disclosure from federal authorities while shielding comparable records at the state level, it creates a credibility gap. The public deserves consistency: if transparency is a value to be demanded from others, it should also be practiced in one’s own office. Otherwise, requests for openness look less like a defense of principle and more like a tactical maneuver.
At every stage, the interplay between federal FOIA protections and California public records law will shape what, if anything, becomes public. Exemptions exist for valid reasons, but so does the public’s right to know, and that tension is exactly what these requests and denials will test in the days ahead.
Add comment