A federal criminal investigation involving California Gov. Gavin Newsom has taken a significant new turn, with prosecutors issuing subpoenas demanding six years of records tied to an organization that has helped cover expenses connected to the governor.

Federal prosecutors in California’s Eastern District issued subpoenas earlier this month targeting the California State Protocol Foundation, according to documents reviewed by the San Francisco Standard.

And the scope of the records being sought is extensive.

Prosecutors are demanding information involving the foundation’s donors and fundraising activities, Newsom’s international travel and events, and money potentially used toward the governor’s residence, living costs or other personal expenses.

The subpoenas also seek communications involving Newsom himself, current and former aides, foundation board members and chief protocol officer Rebecca Prowda, who oversees the governor’s overseas travel.

The documents were signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael D. Anderson and state that the records are being sought as part of a pending criminal investigation in the Eastern District of California.

The records are expected to be presented to a grand jury.

Prowda, a central figure in managing Newsom’s international travel, is married to San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie. Individuals identified in reporting as foundation board members include longtime Newsom associates Steve Kawa and Jason Elliott.

The subpoenas add another layer to federal scrutiny that Newsom himself publicly acknowledged months ago.

On June 15, Newsom said that he and First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom were facing scrutiny from the Department of Justice. According to Newsom, federal agents had contacted relatives, friends and former employees.

Newsom portrayed the investigation as an attempt to search for possible offenses rather than one launched in response to crimes authorities had already identified.

Sources familiar with the matter have reportedly said investigations touching Newsom’s circle have been underway for roughly a year.

Those sources said the inquiries originated with whistleblower complaints handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Sacramento rather than from directives issued in Washington.

The Justice Department has declined to publicly confirm or discuss the existence of the probe.

Another reported area of scrutiny involves Siebel Newsom’s tax filings and nonprofit organizations connected to the couple, including the California Partners Project.

But the California State Protocol Foundation could prove particularly significant because of the substantial sums of private money that have flowed through the organization.

Established in 2001, the foundation accepts private donations to pay certain expenses associated with gubernatorial travel, hosting and protocol — costs that could otherwise fall on taxpayers.

Since taking office in 2019, Newsom has directed more than $7.5 million in outside contributions to the foundation, according to the supplied reporting.

Approximately $5.1 million of that came from leftover inaugural funds.

The foundation has also paid other expenses, including costs associated with travel.

Some of its donors have included corporations and organizations with interests before California state government, adding another dimension to questions surrounding the relationship between private donors and organizations connected to the governor.

California law allows elected officials to solicit so-called “behested payments” — contributions directed toward charitable or governmental purposes. Payments exceeding certain thresholds are subject to disclosure requirements.

Newsom has reported hundreds of millions of dollars in behested payments to numerous organizations since becoming governor.

The existence of those payments is not itself evidence of criminal activity. Behested payments are legal when handled and disclosed in accordance with California law.

Still, reporting about donors to Newsom-linked nonprofits has raised questions about situations in which contributors also have business before state government, with critics sometimes describing the overlap as potential “pay-to-play.”

Newsom has previously been fined by California’s Fair Political Practices Commission over the late reporting of certain behested payments.

The widening scrutiny also comes against the backdrop of an entirely separate criminal case involving one of Newsom’s former top aides.

Dana Williamson, Newsom’s former chief of staff, pleaded guilty in May 2026 to conspiracy to commit fraud, filing a false tax return and making false statements in a scheme involving diverted campaign funds.

Newsom was not named in the charging documents in that case.

His office has said the governor cooperated with that investigation, which began before the current developments.

For now, the newly revealed subpoenas do not establish that Newsom committed a crime, nor does a grand jury investigation itself amount to a finding of wrongdoing.

But the latest development shows that federal prosecutors are doing more than making preliminary inquiries.

They are seeking years of financial records, donor information, communications and details surrounding Newsom’s travel and expenses for use in a pending criminal investigation — records that the subpoenas say will ultimately be placed before a federal grand jury.

White House border czar Tom Homan has publicly confirmed that federal immigration investigators are examining allegations involving Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar, escalating a controversy that has followed the Minnesota congresswoman for years.

Homan made the disclosure Sunday during an appearance on “The Sunday Briefing,” where he was questioned about whether federal authorities possessed evidence of possible immigration or naturalization fraud involving Omar.

While Homan refused to reveal what investigators have uncovered, he acknowledged that an investigation is underway.

“I know things are going on, but I can’t give specifics of what’s happening,” Homan said.

He then issued a broader warning: holding elected office does not place someone beyond the reach of federal immigration law.

“If someone committed an immigration violation, if someone committed marriage fraud or anything like that, regardless if they’re a congressman or not, no one’s above the law. So, I’ll leave it at that. We’ll let HSI, Homeland Security Investigations, continue the investigation.”

Homan was then pressed on the central question — was he actually confirming that Omar herself was under investigation?

His response left little ambiguity.

“I’m confirming that ICE is, yeah — look, I said months ago that there’s something that’s been reported and needs to be looked at.”

The remarks represent another public acknowledgment from a senior Trump administration official that federal authorities are examining allegations connected to Omar’s immigration history.

For years, critics of Omar have alleged that she married Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, whom they have claimed is her brother, as part of an immigration arrangement.

That allegation has not been publicly proven, and Omar has repeatedly denied it.

In December, she characterized the accusations as “bigoted lies.”

Homan isn’t the first senior administration official to address the controversy.

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has also publicly discussed allegations involving Omar and her family’s immigration history, saying investigators were examining potential wrongdoing.

Mullin made an extraordinary prediction about where the matter could ultimately lead if federal investigators establish that immigration laws were broken.

“Something’s going to happen. … We know that she married her brother to try to bring him to the United States. We know he now lives in London.

“There may be more to this, the whole family migration and possibly some illegal activity for them to come to the United States to begin with. … If we can prove it, that you shouldn’t have been here in the first place, we will deport you.”

Those statements are allegations by administration officials, not established findings of guilt. No criminal charges have been announced against Omar, and Homan did not disclose what evidence Homeland Security Investigations may currently possess.

Vice President JD Vance has also publicly weighed in.

In May, Vance said the Justice Department was reviewing whether Omar may have committed immigration fraud.

“You read the things about Ilhan Omar … who she married and whether she didn’t marry this person or that person,” Vance said then. “It certainly seems like something fishy is there, but everybody’s entitled to equal justice under the law.”

Vance had addressed the controversy even more forcefully during a March podcast appearance, saying he had discussed potential legal action with White House immigration adviser Stephen Miller.

“We think Ilhan Omar definitely committed immigration fraud against the United States of America,” Vance said at the time.

Omar subsequently denied that a Justice Department investigation was taking place.

Now, however, Homan has publicly confirmed that federal immigration investigators are examining allegations involving her.

The border czar also addressed what could happen if investigators were ultimately able to prove fraud occurred during the process through which someone became an American citizen.

“If someone lies through that process to becoming a citizen, and we can prove they, in fact, lied or misrepresented themselves, we can absolutely denaturalize them. We’ve done it before many times over the last 40 years I’ve been around, so it’s a process,” Homan said.

That does not mean such an outcome has been determined in Omar’s case. Federal officials have not publicly disclosed the precise scope of the investigation, what evidence investigators are reviewing, or whether prosecutors are considering criminal charges.

But Homan’s comments mark a significant development in a controversy that has persisted for years.

The question is no longer simply whether political opponents are making allegations against Omar.

A senior White House official is now publicly acknowledging that federal immigration investigators are looking into the matter — while making clear that what they ultimately find will determine what, if anything, happens next.

A massive new release of once-classified intelligence is reopening one of the most consequential questions surrounding September 11: How much did the U.S. government know about Osama bin Laden’s plans to strike America before the attacks occurred?

The CIA has released 71 President’s Daily Brief products from the years surrounding 9/11, exposing a trail of warnings delivered during the administrations of both President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush.

The documents don’t show that either president was handed the blueprint for what ultimately happened on Sept. 11, 2001.

But they do reveal something striking: Years before hijacked passenger jets slammed into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, intelligence officials were already warning about bin Laden, attacks inside the United States, aircraft hijackings and Al Qaeda operatives potentially operating on American soil.

And some of those warnings were remarkably specific.

One of the most alarming came on Dec. 4, 1998.

The briefing prepared for Clinton carried the title:

“Bin Ladin [sic] Preparing To Hijack US Aircraft.”

The intelligence assessment warned:

“Some members of the Bin Ladin network have received hijack training, according to various sources. Bin Ladin could be weighing other types of operations against US aircraft.”

That wasn’t all.

The same document raised the possibility that an operation could be approaching quickly, stating:

“Bin Ladin might implement plans to hijack a US aircraft before the beginning of Ramadan on 20 December and that two members of the operational team had evaded security checks during a recent trial run at an unidentified New York airport.”

The significance of those words is difficult to miss with the benefit of hindsight.

But another warning had reached the Clinton administration months earlier.

A Sept. 10, 1998, briefing described intelligence indicating bin Laden wanted to bring the fight directly onto American soil.

“Bin Ladin late last month said his preferred option is to strike the US on its own soil in Washington … the same group responsible for the US Embassy bombings in Africa Kenya and Tanzania may fly an explosive-packed airplane into a US city.”

The intelligence picture wasn’t uniformly definitive.

Some reports were explicitly regarded as questionable by the CIA.

One July briefing acknowledged that uncertainty directly:

“we have received four reports from highly questionable sources suggesting Usama [sic] Bin Ladin is making plans to conduct an attack in the United States.”

That distinction matters. Intelligence agencies routinely receive fragmentary, contradictory or unreliable information, and the newly released records do not amount to evidence that officials possessed advance knowledge of the specific 9/11 operation.

But the warnings continued.

By February 2000, intelligence reporting was identifying possible symbolic targets inside the United States, including the Statue of Liberty.

Then the presidency changed hands.

The warnings did not disappear.

After George W. Bush took office, intelligence officials continued tracking the threat from bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

Among the documents is perhaps the most famous pre-9/11 presidential intelligence briefing of them all:

“Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US.”

That August 2001 briefing would become a central focus of investigations after the attacks.

It warned that Al Qaeda had an existing presence inside the country:

“Al-Qa’ida [sic] members-including some who are US citizens—have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.”

The briefing also described troubling activity occurring inside the United States.

“After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington,” the document states, noting the FBI found “patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.”

Again, none of that amounted to the operational blueprint for what would happen on Sept. 11.

The intelligence did not identify the World Trade Center and Pentagon as the eventual targets, nor did it lay out the complete plan involving four hijacked passenger jets.

And the reliability of some individual reports remained in doubt.

A July 21, 1999, CIA memo, for example, reported a claim that bin Laden’s organization had “made a dry run of a bombing of the FBI headquarters” in Washington and suggested an attack could occur “soon.”

But CIA analysts simultaneously warned they had “reservations about the source.”

The threat picture extended far beyond airplanes.

Intelligence officials were also investigating whether bin Laden was pursuing chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear capabilities.

A February 1999 document delivered another chilling assessment:

“If Bin Ladin succeeded in buying a chemical or biological weapon, his past behavior and statements indicate he would have no reservations about using it and he would begin searching for a suitable target.”

Taken together, the newly public material provides a revealing look inside the stream of intelligence reaching America’s highest levels of government before 9/11.

CIA Director John Ratcliffe announced the release as the country marked 25 years since the attacks.

“Today I authorized the release of 71 Presidential Daily Briefs to honor the lives of those killed on 9/11,” Ratcliffe said in a statement.

The records span years and show analysts repeatedly trying to understand bin Laden’s intentions from intelligence that was often incomplete, uncertain and rapidly changing.

But they also put renewed attention on a painful historical reality: warning signs existed.

Possible attacks inside America.

Hijackings.

Operatives already in the United States.

Suspicious activity potentially connected to preparations for attacks.

And even intelligence contemplating aircraft being used in attacks against American cities.

Twenty-five years after 9/11, former Bush national security adviser Condoleezza Rice publicly addressed the failure to recognize the full magnitude of the threat before it was too late.

“Those of us in authority on that day did not see the nature of the danger in time to prevent the attack of 9/11,” Rice said.

She added:

“I will always carry deep personal remorse for the pain that you, the families of the fallen, still feel, and for the trauma that our country endured.”

The newly declassified material does not establish that Clinton, Bush or their administrations knew that terrorists would hijack four airplanes on Sept. 11, 2001, or knew the specific targets, timing and mechanics of the coming attack.

What the documents do establish is that the threat from bin Laden had been occupying the attention of American intelligence officials for years.

And scattered throughout that intelligence were warnings involving some of the very elements that would ultimately define the deadliest terrorist attack ever carried out on American soil.

Twenty-five years later, those warnings are now available for the public to examine.

And they provide a stark historical record of just how difficult—and ultimately consequential—it was for the government to turn a growing collection of warning signs into an understanding of the catastrophe that was approaching.