Lead: Governor Gavin Newsom has increased international travel this year—appearing at the Munich Security Conference on Feb. 14 after recent trips to Brazil and Switzerland—prompting renewed scrutiny about who picks up the bills. California’s governor says he is representing the state abroad, while his office says many official travel costs are covered by the California State Protocol Foundation, a nonprofit funded largely by corporate and institutional donors. That arrangement reduces direct taxpayer outlays but raises questions about access and influence tied to private funding. Public disclosures and tax filings show specific trips and donations dating back to 2019 and earlier.
Key Takeaways
- The California State Protocol Foundation reported $1.3 million in revenue for 2024 and ended the year with under $8,000 on hand, according to its most recent tax filing.
- Public disclosure forms show the foundation paid more than $13,000 for Newsom’s 2024 trip to Italy and nearly $4,000 for a 2024 Mexico City trip; overall, Newsom reported $72,000 in travel and related benefits from the foundation since 2019.
- Major gifts include a $300,000 2023 behested payment from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, $150,000 from the U.S. Energy Foundation for COP30 travel, $220,000 from UC Berkeley for a Vatican trip, and $100,000 from Resources Legacy Fund.
- The foundation was established as a tax-exempt nonprofit in 2004 and similar entities trace to the 1980s; governors appoint its board members who then decide which expenses to cover.
- The governor’s office says Newsom travels commercially and that the foundation pays for some staff travel; the office declined to confirm whether security details are paid by the foundation.
Background
Nonprofit support for gubernatorial travel in California is longstanding. The state’s current protocol foundation was created in 2004 during Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s administration; earlier, Gov. George Deukmejian set up a similar mechanism in the 1980s. Use of outside nonprofits expanded through the early 2000s, with Gov. Gray Davis increasing reliance on private groups to cover housing, travel and event costs.
Control and continuity have shifted with administrations: when governors leave office, affiliated supporters and backers have at times transferred nonprofit resources to successors. The foundation’s federal tax filings describe its mission as relieving the State of California of obligations to fund certain governor’s office expenditures. Governors appoint board members who then determine which official travel and activities the foundation will finance.
Main Event
On Feb. 14 at the Munich Security Conference, Newsom framed his global travel as a response to shifts in federal climate policy under the Trump administration, saying simply, “I’m showing up.” In recent months he has traveled to Brazil for COP30, attended the World Economic Forum in Switzerland, and made prior trips to Italy, Mexico City and China for official events tied to climate and diplomatic outreach.
The governor’s office says international travel tied to his role as governor is funded primarily by the California State Protocol Foundation, a nonprofit supported by corporate and institutional donations. The foundation’s 2024 filings list Steve Kawa as board chair and show $1.3 million in revenue for the year; the foundation’s reported year-end balance was under $8,000.
Public Form 700 disclosures show the foundation covered more than $13,000 for Newsom’s 2024 trip to Italy and nearly $4,000 for the Mexico City trip in 2024. In 2023 the foundation paid $15,200 for a weeklong China trip. Earlier, in 2020, the foundation covered $8,800 for travel to Super Bowl LIV in Miami, which Newsom described as representing the state.
Donations that fund the foundation come from a mix of philanthropic organizations, corporate donors and separate nonprofits tied to inaugurations and other political activities; two charities set up for Newsom’s 2019 and 2023 inaugurations transferred more than $5 million to the foundation since 2019, according to public records.
Analysis & Implications
Using nonprofits to underwrite official travel reduces direct taxpayer spending but complicates transparency. When private donors pick up costs for gubernatorial travel, public accounting becomes reliant on donor disclosures and separate tax filings, which can be less immediately accessible than state budget line items. That structural choice shifts some oversight from routine state budgeting processes to donor reporting and the nonprofit’s board decisions.
Critics argue the arrangement creates avenues for donors to gain proximity to policymakers. Behested payments—donations solicited or suggested by an elected official—are legal but raise ethical questions when donors have business before the state. The presence of healthcare companies, tech firms and large foundations among contributors highlights potential conflicts of interest that watchdog groups say deserve stricter disclosure rules and clearer boundaries.
Proponents emphasize the practical benefits: foundations can fund international outreach that bolsters state economic and diplomatic ties without adding to the general fund. Supporters point to the foundation’s stated mission to reduce taxpayer burden and stress that governors have long relied on third-party support for protocol and travel. The policy debate thus centers on balancing practical diplomacy needs against transparency and influence-management safeguards.
Comparison & Data
| Item | Amount | Year / Note |
|---|---|---|
| Protocol Foundation revenue | $1.3 million | 2024 tax filing |
| Year-end balance | Less than $8,000 | 2024 |
| William & Flora Hewlett Foundation | $300,000 | 2023 behested payment for China delegation |
| U.S. Energy Foundation | $150,000 | For COP30 delegation |
| UC Berkeley | $220,000 | For Vatican trip, 2024 |
| Resources Legacy Fund | $100,000 | 2024 |
The table aggregates public figures cited in disclosure forms and foundation filings. These entries illustrate how a relatively small number of large gifts can underwrite travel and delegation costs while the foundation’s overall operating balance can remain modest. The concentration of large donations from foundations and institutions, plus transfers from inaugural charities, explains how specific high-cost trips are funded despite a modest year-end reserve.
Reactions & Quotes
“The Foundation’s mission is to lessen the burden on California taxpayers by reimbursing appropriate expenses associated with advancing the state’s economic and diplomatic interests.”
Jason Elliott, former Newsom advisor and foundation board member
Office representatives and allies emphasize that foundation support relieves taxpayers from bearing the full cost of official delegations and that the governor’s international engagement serves state interests.
“Donors to these foundations receive access to the politicians whose travel they fund,”
Carmen Balber, executive director, Consumer Watchdog
Watchdog groups and some ethics advocates say the pattern of private funding for public officials requires closer scrutiny and tighter disclosure to ensure policy decisions remain independent.
“I’m showing up.”
Gov. Gavin Newsom, Munich Security Conference, Feb. 14, 2026
Unconfirmed
- Whether the protocol foundation pays for the governor’s security detail on international trips remains unconfirmed; the governor’s office declined to specify.
- The precise breakdown of spending for the governor’s recent COP30 and World Economic Forum travel (Brazil and Switzerland) had not been publicly detailed at the time of reporting.
- Any direct, documented quid pro quo arrangements linking specific donations to concrete policy actions have not been substantiated by available public records.
Bottom Line
California’s use of the California State Protocol Foundation to underwrite gubernatorial travel reduces immediate pressures on the state budget but raises durable questions about transparency and influence. Public filings show specific trips and large donor gifts, yet the fragmented nature of nonprofit and disclosure records can make it harder for the public to trace how private funds translate into official activity.
Policymakers and watchdogs are likely to press for clearer rules on reporting, the scope of acceptable donor support and whether certain expenses—such as security—should remain on the public ledger. For now, the arrangement persists as a trade-off: it enables international engagement without direct taxpayer charges, while inviting scrutiny about donor access and the adequacy of existing disclosure safeguards.
Sources
- Los Angeles Times (news reporting)
- Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) (official disclosure/forms)
- ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer (public nonprofit tax filings)