Gov. Gavin Newsom’s chief of staff, Dana Williamson, was arrested on federal fraud and tax-related charges in a case that surfaced publicly on Nov. 13, 2025. The 23-count indictment alleges Williamson and associates siphoned money from a dormant campaign account, misstated business expenses and falsified documents tied to a COVID-era loan; two other aides have pleaded guilty and are cooperating. Newsom’s office says the governor is not under investigation and placed Williamson on leave in November 2024 after she informed him of a federal inquiry. The arrests shook California’s Democratic power network as Newsom pursues national prominence while traveling abroad.
Key Takeaways
- The indictment unsealed Nov. 13, 2025 contains 23 counts, including bank and tax fraud tied to campaign and COVID-relief funds.
- Prosecutors allege funds were funneled beginning in 2022 from a dormant campaign account tied to Xavier Becerra through shell companies to associates.
- Alleged personal expenditures claimed as business costs include a $15,353 Chanel bag, $21,000 in private-jet travel and a $150,000 Mexico birthday trip with an $11,000 yacht excursion.
- Two co-defendants, Sean McCluskie and Greg Campbell, have pleaded guilty and are cooperating, strengthening the government’s case.
- Williamson pleaded not guilty in federal court in Sacramento and has asserted she was approached about an unrelated probe months earlier; her attorney says prosecutors declined a requested pre-charge meeting.
- Alexis Podesta is identified in charging documents as an uncharged co‑conspirator; she has not been charged and her lawyer says she cooperated when irregular payments were disclosed.
- The FBI says the case reflects three years of investigative work involving IRS Criminal Investigation and the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
Background
Williamson, an experienced California political operative who served in Gov. Jerry Brown’s cabinet, joined Newsom’s team as chief of staff and became a central figure in Sacramento. Newsom, a high‑profile Democratic governor and potential 2028 contender, has expanded his national profile; at the time the arrests were disclosed he was traveling abroad after attending the COP30 climate summit. The case involves long-standing relationships among campaign operatives, lobbyists and a network of private consultants that once promoted a collaborative consulting entity in California politics.
Federal prosecutors say the probe traces back to transactions using a dormant account tied to former Cabinet member Xavier Becerra, who has not been accused of wrongdoing and says he is cooperating with authorities. The political context is charged: Newsom’s team immediately framed the case against the backdrop of tensions with the Trump administration and past DOJ actions, while the Justice Department and FBI stress independent investigative steps taken under the Biden-era U.S. Attorney’s Office in Sacramento.
Main Event
The indictment alleges Williamson conspired with Sean McCluskie — a former top aide to Becerra — and lobbyist Greg Campbell to bill the dormant campaign account for fictitious consulting services. Prosecutors say shell companies were used starting in 2022 to move campaign money into accounts controlled by associates, with substantial sums allegedly routed to McCluskie’s wife and to accounts accessed by McCluskie.
Williamson is additionally charged with falsifying documents to obtain a COVID-era small business loan and with reporting luxury goods and travel as business expenses on tax returns. Federal filings enumerate specific items and amounts, highlighting the government’s contention that personal luxury spending was disguised as business deductions to evade detection and taxation.
McCluskie and Campbell entered guilty pleas to conspiracy counts and are cooperating with federal investigators, according to court records and plea agreements. Those filings identify other participants and describe a pattern of payments and invoices that prosecutors say lack legitimate consulting work as support. One named person in the charging documents — labeled Co-Conspirator 2 — is Alexis Podesta; her attorney says she acted on prior payment arrangements and stopped payments when told they were improper.
Williamson appeared in federal court in Sacramento and pleaded not guilty. Her lawyer, former U.S. Attorney McGregor Scott, said federal agents had approached Williamson more than a year earlier seeking information about an unspecified probe of Newsom; Scott said she had no relevant information to offer. U.S. attorney’s office spokespeople declined to confirm whether any investigation involves the governor, citing Justice Department policy that limits comment on ongoing matters.
Analysis & Implications
Legally, the case is significant because the government has cooperating plea agreements and detailed financial allegations; those corroborating statements can accelerate prosecutions and expand investigatory leads. If documents and bank records substantiate the government’s theory, charges could move beyond the initial defendants, though each person’s legal exposure will depend on direct evidence of intent and benefit. The presence of luxury expenditures enumerated in the indictment strengthens prosecutors’ narrative of personal enrichment.
Politically, the affair threatens to erode confidence in California’s Democratic operations and in private consulting networks that serve campaigns and public clients. Even though Newsom is not charged and his office was quick to distance him, the optics of a chief of staff indicted on fraud counts create distractions for an office that occupies outsized influence nationally. Donors, allied consultants and agency partners may demand internal reviews and tighter compliance controls.
The Justice Department’s handling of high-profile political cases will be closely watched for signs of independence or partisan influence. Newsom aides framed the timing through a partisan lens, citing a history of legal conflicts with the Trump administration; investigators and prosecutors counter that this probe began under the Biden-era U.S. Attorney’s Office and involved IRS Criminal Investigation. The policy and political debate about DOJ independence is likely to intensify as the case proceeds.
Comparison & Data
| Allegation | Amount |
|---|---|
| Chanel handbag listed as business expense | $15,353 |
| Private-jet travel claimed as business expense | $21,000 |
| Mexico birthday trip (including yacht) | $150,000 (yacht $11,000) |
| Indictment counts | 23 counts |
The table above summarizes the high-dollar items prosecutors cite in the indictment and the overall size of the charging document. Those amounts are illustrative of the financial detail prosecutors use to argue the expenditures were personal rather than legitimate business costs; the government also points to a multi-year pattern of disbursements from a dormant campaign account beginning in 2022.
Reactions & Quotes
“These charges reflect years of investigative work in partnership with IRS Criminal Investigation and the U.S. Attorney’s Office.”
FBI Sacramento (official statement)
“We are not aware of any federal investigation involving the governor.”
Newsom spokesperson (office statement)
“This investigation began under the Biden DOJ; claims it is politically driven by the Trump administration are unfounded.”
White House spokesperson (official statement)
Unconfirmed
- Whether federal investigators were pursuing a probe directly involving Gov. Newsom prior to Williamson’s arrest remains unverified by prosecutors and is not referenced in charging documents.
- No public evidence yet shows White House or Trump‑era involvement in launching this particular investigation; claims of political motivation are disputed by officials on both sides.
- The ultimate reach of cooperating witnesses’ testimony — including whether it will implicate additional figures beyond the charged defendants and identified co‑conspirator — is not yet confirmed.
Bottom Line
The indictment against Dana Williamson marks a high-profile breach at the center of California’s Democratic apparatus, relying on cooperating pleas and detailed financial allegations that could produce further legal fallout. While Gov. Newsom is not charged and his office denies any investigation into him, the case creates immediate political and operational risks for his administration and allied networks of consultants and donors.
Watch for forthcoming court filings, any additional plea agreements, and public disclosures of bank records or invoices that prosecutors use as proof; those documents will determine how far the investigation expands and whether it prompts institutional reforms in campaign finance oversight and compliance among political consultants.