California Gov.
Gavin Newsoms carefully stage-managed release of his recent tax returns has raised more questions than it answered about how the Democratic governor and his wife sustain their lavish lifestyle while their reported income stagnates and one of their key business entities bleeds red ink.
According to RedState, Newsom on Thursday invited a handpicked group of journalists into his Sacramento office and granted them five hours to pore over nearly 800 pages of tax filings covering 2021 through 2024. The documents, which could not be copied or photographed, show that while the couples taxable income has not grown since their last public release, Jennifer Siebel Newsoms for?profit venture, Girls Club Entertainment, lost money in all four years and did not pay her a salary in 2023 or 2024.
The figures broadly track with projections based on the Newsoms previously released tax returns and financial disclosures from 2010 through 2020, but they do little to clarify how the couple finances a lifestyle that includes multimillion-dollar real estate holdings and substantial household staff. For the earlier period from 2015 through 2020, the couples average taxable income was $1.4 million a year, peaking at $1.7 million in 2015 and dipping to $1.1 million in 2017, suggesting that their current earnings are roughly flat despite their rising expenses and expanding footprint.
They have nonetheless paid significant sums to federal and state tax authorities, largely driven by investment gains and real-estate transactions rather than traditional wage growth. From Politico: The Newsoms paid close to $1.3 million in federal taxes and $184,000 in state income taxes in 2021 owing largely to the windfall from the house sale and other investments. They paid $760,000 in taxes in 2022 as their earnings dropped to $1.6 million. And they paid less than $600,000 in taxes in 2023 and 2024 while making $1.4 million each year.
The Los Angeles Times, which was also granted access, reported additional detail on the couples tax obligations, underscoring the scale of their liabilities even as their reported income plateaued.
The LA Times provided a few more details about taxes paid: During those four years, Newsom and Siebel Newsom paid a high of $1,253,187 in federal income taxes in 2021, and a low of $488,821 in 2023. Their state tax income bill ranged from $34,307 to $213,331 during that time. The annual property tax bills hovered between $48,000 and $64,300 over that span.
Those property tax figures do not include the $9.1 million Marin County home that Siebel Newsom acquired through a limited liability company in November 2024, a purchase that will not appear until the couple files their 2025 return, expected in October. The omission only heightens scrutiny of how the governors family is leveraging complex ownership structures and timing of disclosures while presenting themselves as champions of transparency in an era when many Democrats demand ever-greater financial exposure from their political opponents.
Even without the Marin mansions tax burden, the Newsoms spending patterns reveal a household operating at a level far beyond that of the average Californian struggling under high taxes, soaring housing costs, and inflation. The couple reportedly spends around $190,000 annually on household employees, including childcare expenses ranging from $14,000 to $44,000 a year, a reminder that progressive rhetoric about equity often coexists with a lifestyle dependent on a small army of hired help.
For the years covered by the newly reviewed returns, the Newsoms also carried a $13,000-per-month mortgage on their Fair Oaks estate, a substantial monthly obligation even for a family with seven-figure taxable income. On top of that, Siebel Newsoms LLC took out a $6.5 million mortgage against the Marin County mansion, and she and her parents, as members of the LLC, were required to personally guarantee the note, raising the stakes if anything goes wrong.
Siebel Newsoms declining individual income from 2021 through 2023, combined with the fact that Girls Club Entertainment lost money for four consecutive years and paid her no salary in 2023 or 2024, raises obvious questions about how the LLC qualified for such a large mortgage. For conservatives who have long argued that Democratic elites operate under a different set of financial rules than ordinary citizens, the arrangement will likely reinforce suspicions that political clout and family wealth are doing the heavy lifting where conventional underwriting standards might otherwise apply.
The tightly controlled nature of Thursdays document review only added to that perception. Reporters were permitted to bring blank tax forms, paper, and pens, but Cameras, phones, photocopies, and smart glasses were strictly prohibited, according to KCRAs Ashley Zavala, a setup that ensured the governors team could claim openness while preventing independent experts from conducting a detailed, line?by?line analysis in real time.
Newsoms aides insist the exercise fulfills his oft-repeated pledge to release his tax returns and to hold himself to a higher standard than President Donald Trump, a favorite foil for the governor as he eyes a potential 2028 White House run. Spokesman Izzy Gardon declared, Governor Newsom is the first Governor in California history to publicly release tax returns covering every year of his tenure in office. That's on top of placing his assets in a blind trust and signing a day-one executive order barring state agencies from doing business with his businesses. Meanwhile, Donald Trump is openly cashing in on the presidency cutting business deals from the Oval Office and enriching himself and his family. The contrast is glaring, and the double standard is absurd.
Yet even Gardons carefully crafted statement contains a notable caveat that conservatives are unlikely to overlook. While the executive order may prevent state agencies from contracting directly with Newsoms own businesses, those same agencies remain free to do business with Jennifer Siebel Newsoms nonprofit, The Representation Project, leaving a significant channel of influence and potential benefit untouched despite the governors claims of ethical rigor.
Login